Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

East Lothian Western District Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cardiff, Stoke-on-Trent, and Worthing) Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (East Dean and United Districts Joint Hospital District) Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Essex) Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Morecambe and Heysham) Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Torquay and Weymouth and Melcombe Regis) Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS),

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That in the case of the Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cardiff, Stoke-on-Trent, and Worthing) Bill [[Lords], the Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (East Dean and United Districts Joint Hospital District) Bill [Lords], the Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Essex) Bill [Lords], the Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Morecambe and Heysham) Bill [Lords], and the Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Torquay and Weymouth and Melcombe Regis) Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 211 and 236 be suspended, and that the Committee on the said Bills have leave to consider the Bills upon Tuesday next."—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Major COLFOX: Might we know what are these Standing Orders?

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered,
That in the case of the Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cardiff, Stoke-on-Trent, and Worthing) Bill [Lords], the Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (East Dean and United Districts Joint Hospital District) Bill [Lords], the Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Essex) Bill [Lords], the Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Morecambe and Heysham) Bill [Lords], and the Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Torquay and Weymouth and Melcombe Regis) Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 211 and 236 be suspended, and that the Committee on the said Bills have leave to consider the Bills upon Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

GERMANY (GAS BOMBS).

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any inquiry has been made by the League of Nations as to the reported manufacture of gas bombs at the Schischau works at Elbing, Germany; and can he give particulars?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): No inquiry in the sense suggested has been made by the League of Nations.

Mr. DAY: Have any inquiries been made as to the truth of these reports from His Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin?

Mr. HENDERSON: I must ask for notice of that question. I am only answering as to whether inquiry has been made by the League of Nations.

COAL INDUSTRY.

Mr. DAY: 58.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether any recent meeting has been held at Geneva with experts from other countries to consult with a subcommittee of the Economic Committee of the League on the general aspects of the coal question; can he say whether
any resolutions were passed and decisions arrived at; and can be give the House particulars?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): There has been no consultation by the Coal Sub-Committee of the Economic Committee of the League of Nations with experts since October, 1929. Since that date the International Labour Office has been concerned with the effort to secure some international agreement relating to hours, wages and working conditions in the coal-mining industry. As no doubt my hon. Friend is aware, a draft Convention on Hours in Coal Mines failed by only a small margin to secure endorsement at the International Labour Conference at Geneva in June. The Conference agreed, however, that the subject should be placed on the Agenda of the next Session, and also passed a resolution expressing the view that, irrespective of the work of the International Labour Organisation for unifying working conditions, the attention of the Economic organisation of the League of Nations should be called to the desirability of an economic agreement being concluded as soon as possible between the coal-producing countries.

Mr. DAY: Can the hon. Member say whether this will be helpful?

Mr. SHINWELL: There has been no agreement up to now.

PALESTINE (MANDATE).

Major ELLIOT (for Mr. ORMSBY-GORE): 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the complete observations of the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations on the manner in which the mandate for Palestine has been carried on during the past year have now been received; when and by whom these observations will be published in full; and whether, in view of the criticisms submitted by this advisory committee of the League of Nations, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to take early action to carry out their obligations under the mandate?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I understand
that the report of the Permanent Mandates Commission to the Council of the League of Nations, together with the observations upon it of His Majesty's Government, will be published by the Secretariat of the League as soon as those observations have been received. As regards the last part of the question, His Majesty's present Government will continue, like their predecessors who have been responsible for Palestine in the past, to administer that territory in accordance with the terms of the Mandate, and any suggestions made by the Permanent Mandates Commission as regards the measures to be adopted in better realising the objects of the Mandate will receive their most careful consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

TREATY.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any proposals for the reopening of negotiations regarding a treaty with Egypt have been made to him on behalf on any political party or organisation in that country?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: No, Sir.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: May we take it, then, that the report current in London that negotiations had been reopened unofficially are untrue?

Mr. HENDERSON: What does my answer imply except that?

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: The right hon. Gentleman might have been referring to official negotiations.

Mr. HENDERSON: I have nothing do with unofficial negotiations.

SITUATION.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement as to the present position in Egypt; and whether any further steps are being taken to protect foreign nationals?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received information of the reported disturbances in Cairo; whether British forces were involved; what were the casualties; and whether these included any foreigners?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: It is reported that 15 demonstrations took place in Cairo on Monday last, varying in size from 400 to 300 people. The demonstrators threw stones and broke tram windows and street lamps. No other damage to European property is reported. The only cases of injury to foreigners were one European tram conductor and one Hungarian injured. The situation in Cairo is now well in hand, and no British forces were employed either there or in Port Said and Suez where disturbances also occurred. Disorders were nowhere serious, and there was no participation in them by respectable elements of the population. The workers everywhere kept out of the demonstrations and remained steadily at their employment. Full particulars of the casualties among the police and rioters have not yet been received.

Sir K. WOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to the disturbances yesterday?

Mr. HENDERSON: Not beyond this.

Captain CROOKSHANK: What is a respectable element?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What is the cause of these disturbances?

FOREIGN REPRESENTATIVES (MEETING).

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any statement or report from the High Commissioner in Egypt regarding the meeting of foreign Ministers and diplomatic agents in Cairo; what the exact object of the meeting was; whether the High Commissioner was present or invited to be present; and whether there is any previous instance of a meeting of foreign representatives in Egypt to discuss the action that might be necessary in the event of civil commotion?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I have received no report from the High Commissioner about any such meeting.

FOREIGN SUBJECTS (PROTECTION).

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any representations have yet been made to him by foreign Powers as to the protection of foreign lives and property in Egypt?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I have nothing to add to the reply which I returned to
the hon. Member on Monday last, when I informed him that no official diplomatic representations have been made.

BRITISH NOTE.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has sent any reply to the communication addressed to His Majesty's Government by Nahas Pasha, leader of the Wafd?

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the British Government has replied to the recent communication of Sidky Pasha on the British Note regarding the protection of foreigners; and, if so, on what lines?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The reply to both questions is in the negative.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will not enter into negotiations with the Opposition either in Egypt or in any other country?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

STATISTICS.

Mr. THOMAS LEWIS: 10.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the personnel and tonnage of the Navy for the years 1914 and 1930, respectively; and the number and cost of the personnel at the Admiralty for the years 1914 and 1930, respectively?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): As the reply is a long one and contains many figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The figures relating to naval personnel and tonnage are as follows:


—
1914.
1930.


Great Britain (not including the Dominions).




Naval Personnel
146,047
96,228



(July).
(June).


Tonnage of the Navy
2,102,067*
1,235,337†



(August).
(July).


* "Navy List" Displacements.


† "Standard" Displacements.

In calculating the tonnage of the Navy, the same categories have been included as in the reply to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. West Russell) on the 12th February last (OFFICIAL REPORT, cols. 431–2), namely, capital ships, cruisers, aircraft carriers (excluding seaplane carriers), flotilla leaders, destroyers, torpedo boats (1914), and submarines. Personnel figures (numbers borne) have been given for the nearest available date to those for tonnage. In the reply referred to "Standard" displacements were used except for capital ships (1929) for which "Navy List" displacements were used. In the present figures for 1930 "Standard" displacements have been used for all categories. The figures relating to the number and cost of the personnel at the Admiralty were given in the reply to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour) on the 3rd June, 1930 (OFFICIAL REPORT, cols. 1945–6), namely:


—
Naval Officers and Ratings.
Civilians.


(a)
Numbers serving at Headquarters on 1st January, 1914.
152
1,910



Cost
£98,669
£364,933


(b)
Average numbers borne during 1929–30.
252
2,780



Cost
£270,000
£986,000

RETIRED OFFICERS (SELECTION FOR APPOINTMENT).

Mr. T. LEWIS: 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will take steps to ensure that, in selecting ex-officers from the waiting list at the Admiralty, priority shall be given to suitable candidates who are not in receipt of large pensions?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The possibility of applying such a rule as that suggested does not, in practice, arise. The posts in which retired officers are employed are in the main posts demanding particular qualifications and experience for which only candidates possessed of such qualifications and experience can be considered. This necessity restricts the field of selection in a particular case to retired officers of approximately similar
service and experience, whose pensions also will, as a rule, be approximately equal.

EX-MATES AND MATES.

Mr. T. LEWIS: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the total number of commanders, lieutenant-commanders and lieutenants (ex-mate), and mates (executive branch) now serving on the active list; and whether, seeing that nine lieutenant-commanders retired last year and only five ratings were commissioned as mates, it is intended to keep this type of officer up to the original strength of 100 or not?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The answer to the first part of the question is as follows:


Commanders (Ex-Mate) on the Active List
5


Lieutenant-Commanders (Ex-Mate) on the Active List
49


Lieutenants (Ex-Mate) on the Active List
39


Mates on the Active List
15


Acting Mates on the Active List
5


As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer of the 9th July (OFFICIAL REPORT, cols. 401–2), to my hon. Friend the Member for the Drake Division (Mr. Moses).

POST-WAR CONSTRUCTION (CRUISERS).

Major ROSS: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many cruisers designed to carry guns not exceeding 6.1-inch calibre have been actually laid down by the British Empire, the United States of America, Japan, France and Italy, respectively, since 1918?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The figures are as follow:—
British Commonwealth of Nations, nil; U.S.A., 8; Japan, 13; Italy, 4; France, 4.

Major ROSS: Does the right hon. Gentleman view our position in this class of ships with unconcern?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I think we have viewed the position quite soundly and exhaustively in the statements which we have made to the House in the last few debates, and I think the country as a whole is satisfied.

LOWER DECK (PROMOTION).

Captain W. G. HALL: 15.
asked the First of the Admiralty the number of
lower-deck ratings promoted to the rank of captain and admiral on the active list during the last 20 years?

Mr. ALEXANDER: One lower-deck rating has been promoted to captain, and during part of this time he held the rank of commodore. None has been promoted to Rear-Admiral on the Active List.

Captain HALL: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the recently announced Departmental Committee on lower-deck promotion will be empowered to consider the abolition of the separate rank and distinctive title of mate for lower-deck ratings promoted to commissioned rank?

Mr. ALEXANDER: All aspects of the question will be considered by the Committee.

BUILDING PROGRAMME, 1930–31 (SUBMARINE).

Mr. MARKHAM: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many firms have been invited to tender for the construction of the submarine of the G class in the 1930–31 programme; and what are the names of those firms?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Tenders for this ship have not as yet been invited.

Major ROSS: Will firms in the North of Ireland be asked to tender?

Mr. ALEXANDER: All shipbuilding firms that are considered capable of performing the particular contract for which a tender is invited are, of course, always invited.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS (LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL).

Mr. MANDER: 18.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he is aware that one of the unofficial Turkish elected members of the Cyprus Legislative Council is a Government official; and if he will consider the advisability of altering this arrangement?

Dr. SHIELS: I am aware that one of these members holds a public office, but he is not a Government official in the ordinary sense. The answer to the latter part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. MANDER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this arrangement is causing
great dissatisfaction in Cyprus, and will he make inquiries?

Dr. SHIELS: No, I am not aware of that fact at all. This gentleman has charge of certain Turkish charitable trusts. The position is perfectly legal, the matter has been inquired into several times, and the arrangement may be regarded as quite a proper one.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that this is a satisfactory arrangement?

Dr. SHIELS: Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES (SUGAR INDUSTRY).

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: 19.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies which islands in the West Indies put an export tax on sugar?

Dr. SHIELS: Duty is payable on sugar exported from Antigua, Montserrat and St. Christopher Nevis in the Leeward Islands, and from St. Lucia and St. Vincent in the Windward Islands.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the conditions in these Islands and how bad the labour question is and how the estates are getting into debt, and can he suggest no remedy?

Dr. SHIELS: I have considerable sympathy with the point of view that the hon. Gentleman puts. Of course, there is always the difficulty of the alternative source of revenue, but, in view of the facts which the hon. Member has put, the matter is being gone into at present.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: When may we expect to hear what is being done?

Dr. SHIELS: I cannot give any date, but it, is being considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (McMAHON CORRESPONDENCE).

Mr. COCKS: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the publication of the McMahon-Hussein correspondence?

Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir. The matter is receiving attention, but I cannot yet make any statement.

Mr. COCKS: Does the hon. Gentleman hope to be able to make a statement before the end of the Session?

Dr. SHIELS: I should like to be, and I hope to be in a position to make a statement, but the matter is very difficult and complicated. I cannot undertake to make a statement, but I will try to do so.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: What are the difficulties that are causing all this delay?

Dr. SHIELS: I think they are very familiar to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLOMON ISLANDS.

Mr. DAY: 22.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what improvements have taken place with reference to the inter-island communication by establishing a chain of wireless stations in the Solomon Islands; whether the recommendations contained in the report on the disturbances in these islands have been carried out; and can he give particulars?

Dr. SHIELS: I regret to have to say that the straitened position of the finances of the Protectorate has made it necessary to postpone action upon the proposal for a chain of wireless stations, and certain of the other recommendations in the report which involve additional expenditure. The new Resident Commissioner has been enjoined to give particular attention to the native administration side of his duties, and to issue explicit directions for the guidance of district officers as to the manner in which legislation closely affecting the natives is to be applied. Directions have also been given that native police patrols are to be used as sparingly as possible, and that when they are used they shall as far as practicable be composed of native police who are conversant with the customs and speak the language of the people to whom they are sent.

Mr. DAY: Can my hon. Friend say what would have been the cost of the wireless chain stations recommended in the report.

Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir; I am afraid that I should require notice of that question.

Mr. DAY: Was not an estimate being prepared?

Dr. SHIELS: I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALARIA.

Mr. RAMSAY: 23.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the mortality and cost caused annually by malaria within the British Empire; and whether the Government has under consideration any special schemes for dealing with the same?

Dr. SHIELS: I am well aware of the serious mortality and economic loss caused by malaria within the British Empire and outside it, even in Europe itself. The difficult problem of malaria control is one that engages the constant attention of the Colonial Office and Colonial Governments. In many Colonies there are special organisations for the study of malaria and for the application of preventive measures and a large number of officers of the Colonial Medical Services have taken special courses of training in this subject. In various tropical Colonies a marked improvement in health has already taken place. Other measures are under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ.

BRITISH RAILWAY OFFICIALS.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 25.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now state what arrangement has been reached with the Iraq Government regarding British railway officials in Iraq?

Dr. SHIELS: The matter is still under negotiation with the Iraq Government. It is being actively pursued, and there is reason to hope that a settlement will not be long delayed.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Will the settlement be embodied in the agreement to be attached to the Treaty?

Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir; I must point out to the hon. Member that the Treaty does not come into force until 1932, or until such date as Iraq enters the League of Nations, and we want the matter settled before then. It will have to be the subject of a separate agreement.

TREATY.

Mr. AYLES: 47.
asked the Prime Minister if the Government propose to give time for the discussion of the treaty of alliance between the United Kingdom and Iraq, signed at Bagdad on 30th June, 1930, before it is ratified and, if so, when?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): Yes, Sir; if there is a general desire for such discussion next Session, but my right hon. Friend is not in a position to name a date.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

DEMONSTRATION FLIGHTS (BUENOS AYRES).

Mr. MATTERS: 27.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will arrange for the despatch to Buenos Ayres of one of the British Schneider Trophy seaplanes for the purposes of demonstration flights associated with the British Empire Manufactures Exhibition in the Argentine capital?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): The difficulty stated in the reply which I gave my hon. Friend on 14th May still remains. It is not yet known whether the sea-planes will be required for next year's Schneider Trophy race.

PASSENGER AIRCRAFT (SAFETY REGULATIONS).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 28.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether there is any regular official inspection of cross-Channel passenger-carrying aeroplanes which ply for hire on fixed advertised services; and, if so, how it is carried out at the terminal points here and on the Continent in all cases?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday to the private notice question asked by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Sir G. Penny).

FLYING DISASTER, MEOPHAM.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 29.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, as the result of the technical examination carried out by representatives of his Department into the fatal
accident at Meopham, he can make any statement as to the suggested cause?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I regret that I am not, as yet in a position to make any statement, in regard to the cause of this most distressing accident. It is now being investigated by the Inspector of Accidents, and some time must elapse before his investigation is completed.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is going to be an open court of inquiry into the cause of this accident as there was into the loss of the "City of Ottawa"?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I cannot answer that question definitely, but I should suppose so.

AERODROME SITE, WOLVERHAMPTON (ELECTRIC CABLE).

Mr. MANDER: 30.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the proposed aerodrome of the Wolverhampton flying school at Blackhalve Farm, Wednesfield, is threatened by the proposal of the Central Electricity Board to erect an overhead cable passing over the site; and whether he will take the necessary steps to arrange for a deviation?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am generally aware of the matter referred to, but no application for my consent to erect the overhead line has yet been made. If an application is received, I shall consult the Air Ministry before coming to a decision.

Mr. MANDER: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is practically the only site available for an aerodrome, whereas there are many possible ways of taking overhead cables?

Mr. MORRISON: If the matter comes before me, that and other considerations will be kept in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES.

Mr. EDE: 31 and 32.
asked the Minister of Transport (1) in how many parishes a joint electricity authority has exercised its power under Section 12 (1) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, to supply electricity and the approximate number of population of such parishes;
(2) how many parishes there are in respect of which the Electricity Commissioners have, under Section 12 (1) (iii) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, exercised their powers to impose on a joint electricity authority an obligation to supply electricity, and the estimated population of such parishes?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Of the four joint authoritiee which have been created under the 1919 Act only three have powers of the nature referred to. The position in the London district, of which my hon. Friend is aware, is that only two parishes are outside the areas of authorised distributers. The West Midlands authority have submitted to the Electricity Commissioners proposals for furnishing supplies in an area of approximately 109 square miles with a population of 67,000 inhabitants, containing 62 parishes, including five urban districts. These proposals have been approved in principle and the draft Order is under discussion with the Joint Authority. The North-West Midlands Joint Authority, which was only constituted last year, is under a similar obligation to submit proposals to the Commissioners. They have already submitted a scheme for supplying in two parishes and further proposals are, I understand, in active preparation.

Mr. EDE: 33.
asked the Minister of Transport how many Orders he has made since taking office giving local authorities power to supply electricity in areas not previously supplied, and the approximate number of the population concerned; and will he give similar figures for Orders giving companies power to supply?

Mr. MORRISON: I have confirmed 22 Orders made by the Electricity Commissioners giving local authorities power to supply electricity in areas not previously supplied, the approximate population concerned being 207,000. With regard to companies, I have confirmed 29 such Orders, the approximate population concerned being 423,000. Perhaps I should add that in the case of one only of the company applications was there competition with a local authority application as regards any part of the proposed area of supply; and in this case the parties came to an agreement and adjusted their applications to obviate overlapping.

Mr. HOPKIN: Is it possible to know how many of those Orders apply to Wales?

Mr. MORRISON: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a question, when I will obtain the information.

Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSON: 36.
asked the Minister of Transport if he has completed his investigations into the charges for electricity in Bermondsey; and, if so, will he state the result of those investigations?

Mr. MORRISON: I have looked further into this matter and have no reason to doubt that the borough council are fully seized of the desirability of offering supplies to large power consumers at as low a rate as the circumstances of the undertaking justify. I understand that the borough council have under consideration the question whether any reduction in their present charges can be made.

Mr. GIBSON: Has the hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that the charges which have already been made have been excessive in connection with Bermondsey?

Mr. MORRISON: No, Sir, that would hardly be consistent with the answer which I have given to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: 40.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his recent decision concerning the maximum prices to be charged for electricity by the Chiswick Electricity Supply Corporation was based upon the inferiority of the electrical development in this area to that in similar areas with municipal supplies?

Mr. MORRISON: My decision to reduce the maximum charges for electricity supplied by the Chiswick Electricity Supply Company was given on the merits of the case itself, after a public inquiry. I formed the opinion that the high prices previously charged by the company were not justified in view of the circumstances of the undertaking, including their financial position. I do not doubt in general that the maintenance of high prices militates against development, and it was given in evidence at the inquiry that the consumption in this area was only 77 units per head of population as against
an average of 170 units for local authority undertakings in the London and Home Counties district.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: If I bring to the Minister's knowledge other cases of companies charging very highly, will he also use the same power that he possesses to get them reduced?

Mr. MORRISON: If in accordance with the provisions of the Act the local authority in the area of an electricity supply company make an application, or if a sufficient number of consumers, which is not very large, makes an application, we shall then, if there is a prima facie case, be pleased to make an inquiry.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Then my business is to stimulate the local authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

FARRINGTON GURNEY-WHITE ROAD SCHEME.

Mr. GOULD: 34.
asked the Minister of Transport the date on which sanction was given by his Department to the Farrington Gurney-White cross country road scheme; on what date the district valuer was asked to report on land to be acquired; what are the existing causes of delay; and when may work be expected to commence?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am not aware of the date when the county council requested the report of the district valuer, or of any reason why work should not be commenced. My Department issued a grant with respect to this scheme on the 3rd July.

Mr. GOULD: Is my hon. Friend aware that the matter is being held up by the district valuer, and is he satisfied that the district valuer has a sufficient staff to deal with these matters expeditiously?

Mr. MORRISON: My hon. Friend will apreciate that the district valuer is not an officer of my Department, and in those circumstances he will forgive me if I do not express an opinion about it.

MID-SCOTLAND CANAL SCHEME (REPORT).

Mr. TRAIN: 37.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he intends to publish the report of the committee on the Mid-Scotland Ship Canal; and what decision has been reached on the findings of the committee?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am not in a position to say more at the moment than that the report referred to is receiving the immediate consideration of the Ministers concerned.

Mr. TRAIN: In view of the national importance of this subject, will the Minister give the widest possible facilities for the circulation of this report?

Mr. MORRISON: I cannot say until the Ministers concerned have completed their examination of the document.

Mr. MACLEAN: Are we to understand from my hon. Friend that a full inquiry has been made and that the report of the committee is now in the hands of his Department?

Mr. MORRISON: Yes, Sir, the report of the inquiry has been received, and it is now being considered by the Ministers concerned.

Mr. MACLEAN: In view of the fact that consideration is now being given to the report, will the Ministry publish it during the Recess if it is possible to do so?

Mr. MORRISON: That is a question upon which I should not at this stage be willing to be the judge, seeing that the matter is being considered by myself and my colleagues.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether in any case the report is to be made available to the Members of the House?

Mr. MORRISON: I cannot answer that question on the spur of the moment. The report has only just been received and is being considered by my colleagues in the Government, and, obviously, I cannot answer that question at this stage.

Mr. BROWN: Why should it not be made available to Members of the House? It is a matter of great interest not only to Members in Scotland but to Members of all parties.

Mr. MORRISON: I have not said that it should not be available. I have only said that at this moment I am not prepared to say that it should be available, but the hon. Member should not presume what the decision of the Government may be on that point. His representation will be taken into account as his representations are always taken into account.

Mr. BROWN: May I ask the hon. Gentlemen why there should be any doubt whatever—it is that fact which startles the House—that the report should be available to Members of the House?

Mr. MORRISON: I am sure that the House appreciates that it is a perfectly healthy instinct on the part of a Minister not to jump to conclusions.

BRIDGES, BLACK COUNTRY.

Mr. MANDER: 39.
asked the Minister of Transport how many bridges in the Black Country require reconstruction, and in how many cases reconstruction is taking place or is contemplated?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: My Department has record of some 200 bridges in this district which are regarded as not fully adequate for present day traffic. Reconstruction is in hand or already contemplated in the case of about one-third of them. I may add that for the past year I have been urging local authorities in this and other areas to take advantage of the special rate of grant, namely, 75 per cent., which is available from the Road Fund for schemes of reconstructing weak bridges in the ownership of railway and canal companies.

Mr. MANDER: Will the hon. Gentleman continue to urge with all the ability he can that this work should be expedited?

Mr. MORRISON: The hon. Member may be sure that I shall continue my good works.

ROAD WORK (PNEUMATIC PICKS).

Mr. BEAUMONT: 38.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that pneumatic picks fitted with silencers, and no less efficient than those at present in use, can be obtained; that these are manufactured in this country; and will he take steps to have them adopted for use on the roads in towns with a view to making the operations of road-mending less offensive to the public?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am aware of the claims made with respect to pneumatic picks fitted with silencers, and arrangements are being made for one of my technical officers to attend demonstrations of these devices in the near future. I have no power to make their use compulsory.

Mr. BEAUMONT: If they prove of value, will the Minister recommend them to the local authorities?

Mr. MORRISON: I will consider that point without taking the step of recommending any particular commercial firm.

Mr. McSHANE: Would the Minister consider presenting one of these silencers to the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams)?

Mr. BEAUMONT: And the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy).

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

RELIEF SCHEMES (SOMERSET).

Mr. GOULD: 35.
asked the Minister of Transport what schemes for the relief of unemployment have been put before the Somerset County Council by the rural councils of Clutton, Keynsham, Bath and Frome; what schemes have been approved by the county council; and what consideration is now being given to them?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have no information as to the schemes which may have been submitted by these rural district councils to the Somerset County Council. If my hon. Friend will furnish me with particulars of any particular schemes which he has in mind, I shall be happy to supply him with any information which is available in my Department.

CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE.

Sir K. WOOD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether all legislative proposals in connection with the mitigation of unemployment will be first submitted for the consideration of the advisory committee on unemployment, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is a member?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: My right hon. Friend cannot pledge himself as to the course he would adopt in unknown circumstances arising in the future, but as the House is well aware it is the desire of the Government to secure the fullest possible co-operation in such matters.

Sir K. WOOD: Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister has already given a written undertaking to the right hon.
Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) that that course will be adopted?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am not aware of that fact.

Sir K. WOOD: Is it not a fact that that has appeared in the correspondence which has been published in the newspapers?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Did not the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin) have the same opportunity to serve on the Committee?

Sir K. WOOD: We are not asking for it. We do not want it.

TRANSITIONAL BENEFIT.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE (for Sir ASSHETON POWNALL): 62.
asked the Minister of Labour if she will state the number of those unemployed who are on transitional benefit and the cost to date to the Treasury of those so borne?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): On 23rd June, 1930, there were about 320,000 claimants to benefit with claims admitted or under consideration who did not satisfy the First Statutory condition. The cost to the Treasury for transitional benefit, including the estimated cost of administration, to 19th July, 1930, has been about £9,500,000 of which approximately £4,000,000 was in respect of the financial year 1929–30.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that the unemployed have got either the work or the full maintenance which they were promised?

INSURANCE FUND.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE (for Sir A. POWNALL): 63.
asked the Minister of Labour when the £60,000,000 to which it is proposed the borrowing power of the Unemployment Insurance Fund should be raised would be exhausted should the number in the live register average 2,100,000 and 2,300,000?

Mr. LAWSON: It is estimated that the proposed limit of borrowing power (£60,000,000) would be exhausted by the end of December, 1930, if the average
live register from the present time is 2,100,000 and by the end of November if the average is 2,300,000. The dates are given under reserve, because there is necessarily some uncertainty as to the number, out of these totals, who would be receiving transitional benefit.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does the Minister of Labour consider that there will be time to borrow another £10,000,000 should there be a further increase before the beginning of the new Session?

Mr. LAWSON: I think so, but I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman would willingly come back sooner, if necessary.

Mr. DAY: Is it possible to get the money from the Road Fund?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (VENTILATION).

Mr. McSHANE: 41.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the fact that on several occasions recently objectionable smells pervaded the Chamber, he now proposes to institute a scientific inquiry into the present method of ventilation?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): The question of the ventilation of this Chamber has been the subject of elaborate inquiries on a number of occasions. I am not convinced that any existing discomforts are sufficient to warrant further inquiry.

Mr. McSHANE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, notwithstanding all these inquiries, the smell still remains?

Mr. LANSBURY: I would draw attention to the transport of heavily laden barges which give off an effluvium which would get anywhere, whatever system of ventilation was in force.

Captain GUNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House where the smell originates?

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the old system of pumping air round the ankles of hon. Members so that the dust rises to their heads has been discontinued?

Mr. LANSBURY: I do not know whether it is not a good thing that something should rise to our heads occasionally.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS, EDINBURGH.

Mr. E. BROWN: 42.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if he has any further announcement to make with reference to the Calton site, Edinburgh?

Mr. LANSBURY: The answer is in the negative. The position is still as stated in my reply of the 7th instant to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Mathers).

Mr. BROWN: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that, although he thinks it is not desirable to make a statement, the permanent head of his Department has given an interview to the "Scotsman," which has caused very great feeling in Scotland in regard to this matter?

Mr. LANSBURY: I am perfectly well aware of the interview which took place. It was in order to correct certain misstatements which occurred in the newspapers a couple of days previously.

Mr. BROWN: If that is so, cannot the right hon. Gentleman make a definite statement in this House, and not leave it to the permanent head of his Department, a man whom we cannot question in this House?

Mr. LANSBURY: The House is well aware of the fact that negotiations are proceeding between the Department and the Edinburgh Corporation in relation to this matter, and I can only ask hon. Members interested to have patience until the conclusion of those negotiations.

Mr. BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not more open to the plea that has been urged many times in this House, that the buildings on this site should be thrown open to open competition, and that it should not be taken for granted that all the architectural wisdom is in the possession of Sir Lionel Earle and his colleagues?

Mr. LANSBURY: Hon. Members ought not to make statements in regard to a permanent official.

Mr. BROWN: He Should not give interviews.

Mr. LANSBURY: I have, I think on two occasions, made a fairly full statement as to the Department's position in regard to these buildings. It was decided by my predecessor that the design and the architectural responsibility for these buildings should be in the hands of the chief architect in the Office of Works. That was decided before I occupied my present office. I made a statement in the House a month ago, and I adhere to that statement.

Mr. BROWN: If the right hon. Gentleman does not desire that the permanent heads of his Department should be mentioned in this House, will be restrain them from giving interviews, and will the right hon. Gentleman himself give answers on the Floor of this House to the elected Members of this House?

Mr. LANSBURY: I am willing now to answer any question that the hon. Member or any other hon. Member chooses to put on the Order Paper, but I cannot answer questions unless they are asked.

Mr. BROWN: On a point of Order. Arising out of the reflection contained in the answer, may I point out that I put other questions supplementary to this, and that they were refused at the Table, so that we are not given the full privilege of getting answers in this House from the Minister. Therefore, may I have your protection, Mr. Speaker, against reflections by the Minister upon Members of this House who are debarred by the action taken at the Table from putting publicly the questions which they desire to put in the interests of their constituents?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now making reflections on the Clerks at the Table, which I do not think he is justified in making without knowing the full facts of the case.

Mr. BROWN: May I point out that last Friday I handed in a question at the Table, asking the question which now appears on the Order Paper, plus a demand for a statement from the Minister respecting open competition. That was refused by the Chair, and now, when I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, I am told by the Minister that I
have not raised it and am rebuked by him on the Floor of the House because I assert my rights, after having been debarred at the Table from putting my question.

Mr. LANSBURY: I have no desire to say anything derogatory of the hon. Member, but he asked why I did not take the responsibility of answering questions on the Floor of the House, instead of leaving it to the permanent head of the Department. My reply to that was that I could only answer such questions as were put to me by the hon. Member. To that I adhere. I cannot be responsible that certain questions by the hon. Member were not permitted to appear on the Order Paper.

Mr. SPEAKER: May I say on that matter that I am prepared to take the full responsibility?

Mr. BROWN: I am much obliged. I would never have raised the matter publicly but for the reflection contained in the answer of the right hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

COTTON INDUSTRY.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he can make any statement with regard to the cotton report and any further Government action proposed?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The consideration of this matter is proceeding, but I am not in a position at present to add anything to the reply which was given to a similar question last Thursday, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Dr. DAVIES: May I ask whether the Government are fully seized of the seriousness and gravity of the position in Lancashire and whether they are not going to do something besides considering the matter from month to month.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The Government are fully seized of the gravity of the situation in Lancashire, and I understand that the representatives of the cotton trade have been invited to make representations to the Government upon the proposals.

Dr. DAVIES: Have the associations of the cotton trade been informed of the fact that the Government are expecting to receive their recommendations?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I understand that the Home Secretary who was in Manchester a few days ago said something to that effect.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Will the President of the Board of Trade be able to make a full statement in the debate in the House of Commons to-morrow when this question is likely to be raised?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I will convey that suggestion to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Have the Government no suggestion at all to make, or any plans to offer?

ECONOMIC MISSION (FAR EAST).

Dr. DAVIES: 53.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will bear in mind the importance of seeing that the cotton trade is adequately represented on the forthcoming economic mission to the Far East; and is he prepared to receive any suggestions from the trade upon this point?

Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have kept in the closest touch with the Joint Committee of Cotton Trade Organisations regarding the mission to the Far East, and the arrangements contemplated will ensure that the cotton trade is strongly represented.

Mr. GILL: May I ask whether the working people engaged in this trade will also be allowed to make representations on the matter?

Mr. GILLETT: Yes, Sir.

DYESTUFFS (IMPORT REGULATION) ACT.

Dr. DAVIES: 54.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received a copy of a resolution passed by the Blackburn and District Incorporated Chamber of Commerce that the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act is prejudicial to the interests of the textile industries, and should be allowed to lapse when the period of its operation expires; and if he has come to any decision upon this matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The question as to what action, if any, shall be taken with regard to the Dyestuffs
(Import Regulation) Act is still under consideration and a statement will be made as soon as possible.

Dr. DAVIES: Will the hon. Member bear in mind that this is causing a certain amount of anxiety among these people, and will he see that they are put out of their misery as soon as possible?

Sir H. SAMUEL: May I ask whether any answer will be given on this point before the House rises?

Mr. SMITH: I think so.

Mr. HARRIS: Is not this an example of the way in which Safeguarding may affect other industries?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

CONFERENCE.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 48.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will now give the House details of the composition of the British representation upon the round-table Conference?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

BOMBAY.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: 49.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, owing to the attitude of mobs in Bombay, it has not been safe for English women to shop in streets where the principal European shops are situated; and whether any measures to meet the situation have been taken by the Government of Bombay?

Mr. BENN: I have no information as to the truth of the allegation in the first part of the question, but the hon. Member may rest assured that the endeavour to maintain law and order is the constant preoccupation of the Bombay Government and their officers.

Sir C. OMAN: May I ask whether there is not First hand information to this effect, and whether the right hon. Gentleman is not aware that it has been impossible for many days to shop in the streets of Bombay? Can he tell me whether that is so at the present moment?

Mr. BENN: I have replied to that question in my answer.

DEMONSTRATION, SIMLA.

Sir C. OMAN: 50.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Viceroy, arriving to address the Legislature at Simla on 9th July, was greeted with a seditious and treasonable demonstration on the part of a body of Congress women volunteers imported into Simla from a college in the Punjab; and whether any steps have been taken to stop such demonstrations?

Mr. BENN: I have seen references to this incident in the Press. I must leave it to the authorities in India to deal with matters of this kind.

Sir C. OMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this deputation was composed of students from a Government endowed college, and can he tell me whether the authorities of the college have taken proper measures to deal with persons who deliberately insult the highest power in the realm and who travel long journeys to carry out their purpose?

Mr. BENN: As I have pointed out in my reply, I propose to leave the authorities in India to deal with matters of this kind.

SALT WORKS, DHARASANA (RAIDS).

Mr. FREEMAN: 51.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has received a copy of an official report signed by chief medical officers and 18 doctors as to injuries done to unarmed and non-violent citizens during the recent raid at Dharasana, including 973 detailed severe injuries to the head, chest, abdomen and other sensitive parts of the body on 450 individuals by running horses, lathi blows, and in other ways; and whether he will take further steps to secure that the minimum force necessary is employed by the police in preserving order?

Mr. BENN: In order to give my hon. Friend and the House the fullest information in reference to these charges I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT two communiques by the Government of Bombay which deal in detail with the occurrences in question.

Following are the communiques:
Communique dated 11th June, 1930, issued by the Director of Information, Bombay.

The Dharasna Atrocities.

For some time past considerable prominence has been given in the Press to accounts describing atrocities alleged to have been perpetrated by the Government officers whose duty it has been to defend the Salt Works at Dharasna from the raids of the Satyagrahis. These stories have given graphic descriptions of the alleged atrocities; volunteers have been beaten unconscious with lathis, their bodies have been dragged along the ground, pierced with thorns and flung into ditches and almost unmentionable deeds performed upon them. They have been charged with cavalry armed with sticks, ridden down and trampled upon by mounted European officers, numbers of them sustaining wounds which could only have been caused by horses' hoofs.

To obtain first hand information concerning these atrocities the following gentlemen, Messrs. G. K. Devadhar, President of the Servants of India Society, Hussain Tyabji, Ex-Judge of the Small Causes Court, Bombay, Amritlal Thakkar of Dohad and K. Natarajan visited Dharasna and have issued statements recording what they have seen and heard. These statements well repay examination, more especially with a view to seeing how much was actually seen and how much was heard by their authors. One statement made by Messrs. Devadhar, Tyabji and Natarajan, which appeared in the Press on the 5th instant, says that these gentlemen, presumably on the 3rd June
went round the Congress hospitals at Untdi and Bulsar and discovered that the proportion of wounded and injured was comparatively large though deaths and serious cases were few.
That statement does not take us very far; it suffers from a certain vagueness as to what is meant by the proportion of the casualties but it admits that the number of serious cases was few. Little evidence of the atrocities was therefore obtainable at the hospitals.

Then, in order to see the way in which a salt raid was repulsed
they proceeded to a private field which was at such a distance so as not to be a hindrance to the authorities and make their presence unobjectionable.
from there
they saw the raids stopped at a great distance from the salt depot and could see how the volunteers were made to stop and were brought back towards Untdi after they had been informed that they were all arrested.
So much they saw but the account then goes on to say
one of the complaints repeatedly heard was that after being arrested the volunteers were not led but were beaten with lathi blows and lathis were poked into their ribs.
This would not appear to indicate that such deeds were actually witnessed nor would it appear to substantiate the foul atrocities attributed to the police. The report then goes on to say that "it appeared" that the volunteers were allowed to do this, then ordered to do that and then on their refusal belaboured with lathis and chased by galloping sowars and so on.

One thing it does say the authors saw and that is that
after the Satyagrahis were driven out of the salt boundary mounted European sowars rode at full gallop with lathis in their hands beating indiscriminately everybody they saw anywhere between the spot where the Satayagrahis had reached for the raid and the village itself. They actually galloped at full speed through the streets of the village scattering men, women and children and terrorising them. The villagers ran into the lanes and closed themselves in the houses. But if by accident they were unable to escape they were beaten with lathis.
What, however, was the sum total of the damage done by this dreadful charge? In the words of the report
one man received serious injuries by the galloping of a horse. Another man received lathi blows and his Gandhi cap was forcibly snatched away.
If such a charge as described above had ben actually carried out, surely its effects would have been more visible and more serious. Mr. Amritlal Thakkar did say that he was informed that
the Commissioner, Mr. Garrett, has added a new force, namely, trampling of Satyagrahis under horses' hoofs ridden by European sergeants and officers
and that he saw several wounded in hospital trampled under horses' feet and Mr. Waman Muceadam also said that he was told that horses were run over the volunteers' bodies.

It is now but fair to examine the reports of the Commissioner, Northern Division and of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Northern Range both of whom were present throughout and in a position to give an accurate account of what they actually saw happen. These reports state that on the 31st May last there were three raids on the Salt Works. One of these was dispersed by the employment of a corporal and four mounted signallers belonging to the wireless section stationed at Dungri. This "troop" had come to Dharasna to exercise their horses and to satisfy a natural curiosity to see the Salt Works which were the scene of so much trouble. The Deputy Inspector General of Police suggested to the corporal that he might take his men round the maidan in order to see whether the volunteers would thus be dissuaded from attacking. This was done and the horses halted at the Sar Karkun's quarters for a rest before returning to Dungri.

A party of volunteers was then seen advancing on the Nava Zilla, and the corporal and his four men went to cut them off. Some half-a-dozen of the attackers got into the salt pans, where they were easily caught, but the remainder on seeing the horses turned tail and fled with the horses running after them. The whole affair was over in a few minutes, and no casualties whatsoever resulted, as the mounted men did not get into contact with the volunteers, nor had they sticks or other weapons in their hands. An attack on the Bungalow Zilla materialised soon afterwards; the raiders were stopped by the police and sat down on the ground. They had to be forcibly moved back. Half-an-hour later a third attack developed, and the volunteers again squatted when held up by the police. By this time the mounted signallers were en route for Dungri, but they came up again, and at the sight of them the majority of the raiders got up and ran off, the remainder being removed by the police. The Deputy Inspector-General of Police reports that in all these attacks there were no serious casualties, but an abundance of feigning and shamming. The Commissioner, Northern Division, says that the tactics of the volunteers were to lie down when met by the police in the prohibited area. When
ordered to go, most of them responded, but some had to be carried off and dumped outside. Those who obeyed orders escaped scot-free; the obstinate ones received a moderate amount of lathi beating. Here it must be remembered that these volunteers were in an area in which gatherings had been forbidden under the law, and that the police were therefore fully justified in using force to disperse them.

The 1st June was the occasion for two more raids, made in each case by batches about 50 strong. They were met and warned by the police, with the result that some of the volunteers fell out and removed themselves, the remainder being dispersed by force. It is here interesting to note that on this occasion a proportion of the raiders appeared very disgruntled at finding themselves in the firing line; it seems that they had been induced to "join up" on condition that they would not be used as attacking troops, but would he given odd jobs about the camp, etc. They had not bargained for an active part in the operations while their leaders were occupied elsewhere in more pleasant positions.

June the 3rd had been expected to be the occasion of a large demonstration. It was not but three minor raids were made. The first made by a batch of about 80, was led by Mr. Waman Muccadam. It was halted by the police, warned that it was an unlawful assembly and plainly told that if it did not go away it would be dispersed. The head of the column wheeled about and led the way back to the village. Mr. Muccadam was detained, given a talking to, and allowed to go. He wended his way back to Untdi, but not before he had denied leadership of the batch and agreed to catch the noon train for Godhra. The two remaining batches were dealt with in much the same way, but some force had to be used to disperse the more obstinate of their members. This was the day on which Messrs. Tyabji, Tbakkar and others were present to watch the atrocities. The obvious futility of the raids appeared to have so depressing an effect that the next day witnessed a wholesale exodus of volunteers for Bulsar.
During all these raids in which all dispersals have been witnessed by such
responsible officers as the Commissioner downward, the officers present and head constables carried light canes instead of the more cumbersome lathis. These canes proved very effective, and as whenever it became necessary to employ force, their use was restricted to the minimum and as far as possible to the beating of the volunteers on the legs and buttocks, caused very little damage.

These are the two sides of the stories of the raids. It is necessary to judge between the accounts of the atrocities and the cavalry charges given by gentlemen who were present at some time or other and those given by the Government officers in charge of the operations who were present throughout and who day by day were submitting detailed accounts concerning each raid and the measures taken to defeat it. It is admitted that bodies of volunteers who persisted in remaining within the prohibited area, were dispersed by the police carrying lathis and light canes and that in some cases they had to be lifted and dumped outside the boundary. No evidence at all has been produced in support of the stories of testicle squeezing and other such outrages and they are totally denied.

One would have thought that the best evidence as to the way in which these and earlier raids have been repulsed would have been found in the hospitals. It must, therefore, be noted that on the 26th May, when the Dharasna camp was being cleared up, only two cases were alleged to necessitate removal on stretchers. These cases were removed on stretchers to Untdi but later in the day were seen walking about with no medical attendant at Dungri Station. Again on the 4th June, a party consisting of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Northern Range, the Acting District Magistrate, Surat, and others, paid a visit to Bulsar in order to inspect the hospitals there. They entered the first Congress Hospital, formerly a boys' school, and were shown round by a red cross attendant. There were four patients in the first room who were suffering from lathi bruises. A fifth patient walked in while the inspection was in progress but no wounds on him were shown to the visitors. In the next room were two patients with similar bruises from lathi blows. In the third room was one patient with a
bruised shoulder. In not a single case was it suggested to the visitors that horses' hoofs were responsible for the injuries.

By the time the party was ready to inspect the second hospital, which from its size could not have accommodated more than 50 potients, a shouting hostile crowd had gathered and in consequence the second hospital was not visited. It would appear that a visit of inspection from Government officers was not exactly welcome. On the same day the hospital at Untdi was found to contain one patient. Mr. Waman Muccadam was said to be lying injured in the second hospital at Bulsar but the officers in charge at Dharasna are positive that he sustained no injuries whatsoever. If, as has been alleged, Satyagrahis lying passively on the ground had been ridden over by galloping mounted troops would there not have been plenty of casualties showing unmistakable signs of hoof marks available, for inspections and, as it had been admitted that the chief object of the later raids was propaganda, would not care have been taken to ensure that this evidence was utilised to its full value?

To turn from the more serious side, the raids have not been without their lighter touches. The organisers have had apparently of late to spread a very wide net to catch their conscripts and the Satyagrahis have included old men who when reaching the "line" have thankfully accepted a lift back to Untdi on a bullock cart, cycle scouts who on arrest have prayed to be allowed to go home, warriors who have asked to be beaten so that they could return and on receipt of a tap or two on the back of the legs have done so after some complaint that they are not sure that they have been beaten sufficiently to earn their meal tickets, and, best of all, a "leader" who denied his leadership after reaching the fringe of the battle.

One feature of the raids, however, calls for more serious comment and that is the decidedly unorthodox use made of the Red Cross. It had been noticed during the later raids that the number of Red Cross workers was out of all proportion to the number of attackers: in one case there were 25 Red Cross attendants to 50 raiders, in another 75 such noncombatants to 125 active participants, and in consequence careful watch was
kept on their activities. Red Cross helpers were seen discarding their Red Cross badges when they had achieved a position near the salt works, some of them were recognised as men who had been raiders on previous days, and it would appear that the Red Cross had been regarded and used as a rest corps. One volunteer was actually found in possession of a volunteer's badge No. 1810 but wearing a Red Cross, a publicity agent was seen wearing a Red Cross, and a well known lady "general" on being warned by the police for actively directing operations re-appeared shortly afterwards with a large Red Cross pinned to her sari. Such practices are, of course, nothing but an abuse of the privileges invariably accorded to the Red Cross.

Communiqué dated 13th June, 1930, by the Acting Director of Information, Bombay.

In to-day's issue of the "Bombay Chronicle" Dr. Sathaye wonders whether, after my visit to the Congress Hospital yesterday, I shall issue a revised Press Note on Dharasna. In this connection I should like to say that, although I was not then aware that I had been invited to do so, I visited the Congress Hospital yesterday afternoon in company with Mr. F. W. Wilson, Editor of the "Indian Daily Mail," and Mr. V. A. Desai. Mr. Wilson and I were received at the hospital with every courtesy and asked to make a complete inspection. We did so.

To begin with we went carefully through the admission and discharge register to ascertain how many Dharasna casualties had been admitted and the nature of their injuries. Dharasna entries were very few in number and in no case was it on record that a patient was described as suffering from wounds caused by blows from horses' hoofs. We then proceeded to inspect the wards. We saw all the patients there, examined their history sheets and saw their injuries. We questioned them as to the way in which these injuries had been received. The Dharasna patients were quite prepared to tell us their stories and not one of them laid any claim whatsoever to having been injured in any way by a horse. One patient said he saw the horses but did not see anyone trampled upon and another said he saw horses
being urged forward to tread on the volunteers but that they would not do so. The injuries we saw were the result of blows with sticks and lathis.

As we were returning I remarked to Mr. Wilson that what we had seen at the hospital did far more to corroborate the official version of the events of the raid than it did to substantiate the remaining versions. He agreed but said he would have liked to have seen a larger number of injured. I regret that Dr. Sathaye was not present during our inspection of the hospital.

Oral Answers to Questions — MAGISTRATES, BRISTOL.

Mr. ALPASS: 52.
asked the Attorney-General what magisterial appointments have been made in the borough of Bristol during the last four years; and what number, if any, can be regarded as working-class representatives?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir James Melville): The number of appointments for the period mentioned is fourteen. In making these appointments care has been taken to secure a reasonable representation of all classes of the community, but my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor cannot undertake to specify the occupation of each person appointed.

Mr. ALPASS: Is the learned Solicitor-General aware that out of 78 magistrates for the city of Bristol only eight are representatives of the working-classes, and, in view of the disproportionate number of working-class representatives on the magisterial bench, will he not consider making representations to the Lord Chancellor with a view of redressing the matter?

Mr. LAWTHER: Will the learned Solicitor-General see that in the future those who are designated as of no occupation are not appointed?

Mr. ALPASS: May I have a reply to my supplementary question?

Oral Answers to Questions — RASPBERRIES (IMPORTS).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 56.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that two tons of the best homegrown raspberries only fetched 1d. a pound at Covent Garden last week, that the coat of picking is 1½d. a pound, and
that these uneconomic prices are due to the foreign consignments of raspberries that are coming into this country; and whether he will prohibit the import of such foreign raspberries in a similar manner to that of foreign cherries?

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS (Lord of the Treasury): My right hon. Friend is unable to obtain any evidence that any home-grown raspberries were sold last week at Covent Garden Market at as low a price as 1d. per pound. He is also informed that no foreign raspberries were on sale at Covent Garden last week, and that the low level of prices ruling was due to heavy supplies of home-produced fruit. With regard to the last part of the question, there is no reason at present to believe that the importation of raspberries involves any danger to plantations in this country from pests and diseases, and consequently there is no justification for taking action under the Destructive Insects and Pests Acts similar to that taken in the case of cherries.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Will the hon. Member accept any evidence that I can give him with regard to the prices which were obtained last week at Covent Garden?

Mr. EDWARDS: Yes.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: The Department seems to be ignorant of the facts.

Miss WILKINSON: Will the hon. Memmer represent to his right hon. Friend the necessity for improved conditions of marketing rather than increasing the price of this fruit, which is so urgently needed by children?

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: It does not pay the cost of picking.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANCER RESEARCH (EXPERIMENTS, BIRMINGHAM).

Mr. FREEMAN: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what licence were the experiments in cancer research made by painting mice with tobacco tar in the Birmingham General Hospital recently; and whether he can say what results have been obtained?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): The experiments referred to were performed under Certificate A. They were not done at the General Hospital, Birmingham, which is not registered under the Act, but at the Pathological Laboratory of the University of Birmingham. My right hon. Friend is not in a position to make any statement as to the results of the experiments.

Mr. FREEMAN: Will the Under-Secretary consider the desirability of withholding licences for such cruel and useless experiments

Dr. DAVIES: Is the hon. Member right in saying that it was done at the Pathological Laboratory; and may we take it that the Home Office is in favour of any experiments which may help to find the cause of cancer and save the lives of human beings?

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE OFFENDERS.

Mr. FREEMAN: 60.
asked the Home Secretary how many prosecutions have taken place during the last 12 months of children under eight years old; in how many cases has corporal punishment been inflicted as a result; what was the most severe punishment; and whether any medical examination takes place before corporal punishment is inflicted?

Mr. SHORT: My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot give the information asked for, but as my hon. Friend is aware no child under seven can be brought before a Court for an offence. The total number of children and young persons under 16 brought before the Juvenile Courts in 1928 was 22,749, and of these only 172, or 76 per cent., were ordered to be whipped.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that sometimes a whipping is the kindest thing that you can give?

Oral Answers to Questions — WINE AND SPIRIT LICENCES.

Mr. WHITE: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the number of excise licences issued for the sale of wines and spirits in bottles under Section 11 (1) of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, in 1928, 1929, and the first six months of 1930?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The numbers of retail "off" Excise licences issued under Section 111 (1) of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, to holders of dealers' licences were respectively 1,440 in 1928 and 1,547 in 1929. Figures are not yet available as regards any part of the year 1930.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer satisfied with his answer to the last question?

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL OFFICE CONFERENCE.

Dr. DAVIES (for Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE): 26.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he proposes before the conclusion of the Session to make a statement respecting the results of the Colonial Conference?

Dr. SHIELS: I will refer the hon. Member to the Paper just presented to Parliament by my right hon. and Noble Friend, containing the Summary of Proceedings of the Colonial Office Conference (Cmd. 3628), which can be had in the Vote Office. It is proposed to lay a further Paper in the course of the next few days, containing various other Memoranda and Papers connected with the Conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (EMPIRE TIMBER).

Dr. DAVIES (for Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE): 43.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether in the construction of works by his Department requiring the use of timber preference is given to Empire timbers?

Mr. LANSBURY: As a general rule where hardwood timbers are concerned, home or Empire timbers only are specified to the exclusion of foreign timbers. No preference is given in respect of Empire softwoods, as, owing to the absence of an adequate system of marking at the source, it is at present impracticable to ensure that Empire-produced timber is supplied.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman draw attention to the fact that Russian timber is produced by forced labour?

Mr. LANSBURY: I certainly will do no such thing.

Mr. LEIF JONES: Will my right hon. Friend see that the best timber available is used in this construction, irrespective of the place of origin?

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Do we understand that the right hon. Gentleman is giving a preference to foreign timber?

Mr. LANSBURY: The hon. and gallant Member must understand exactly what I said.

Oral Answers to Questions — HYDE PARK (SERPENTINE).

Dr. DAVIES (for Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE): 44.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will state the date upon which the Serpentine was last cleaned out?

Mr. LANSBURY: The Serpentine was last cleaned out during the years 1869, 1870 and 1871.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Was that A.D. or B.C.?

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: What is the depth of the deposit in the Serpentine?

Mr. LANSBURY: I am not a diver, and therefore I do not know.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

Mr. WHITE (for Mr. E. D. SIMON): 55.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the rate of building under the 1924 Housing Act during the present year is just over one-half the rate of building under that Act during the year ending 30th September, 1927; and, having regard to the unemployment in the building industry, what steps he proposes to take to accelerate the rate of building of houses for letting?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make any comparison of building under the 1924 Act in the 12 months ending September, 1927, and September, 1930, respectively. As the hon. Member has repeatedly been informed, the rate of building during the first of the periods was abnormal because
of the rush to complete before a change in the subsidy from the 30th of September. As regards the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend hopes that in the near future local authorities will be undertaking work on a large scale with the help of the new provisions contained in the Bill now before Parliament.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is the hon. Lady really satisfied with the work of her Department, and does she not know that that answer is absolutely misleading and will not fool the women of the country?

Miss LAWRENCE: My right hon. Friend has solid reasons for satisfaction, and I really believe that the women of the country will appreciate his efforts.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Would the Parliamentary Secretary please explain what has happened to the pledges given by the Government at the last Election?

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 57.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will include among the agenda of the Imperial Conference at its next meeting the amendment of the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act, 1920, with a view to the extension of its provisions to bastardy orders?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The question of amendment of the Act referred to in this and other respects is under consideration, but I am unable to say whether an opportunity will occur of discussing the matter at the time of the forthcoming Imperial Conference.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as Leader of the House, a question about business? There is a Motion down to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule. The programme before us to-day is very heavy, and, with the best will in the world to get through it, the Unemployment Insurance Bill must take a considerable time. I know that it is desired to get the first four Orders, and I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer
whether he proposes to sit very late in the event of those Orders not being concluded? Perhaps, at the same time, he can tell me whether it is proposed to take more than one stage to-night of the London Naval Treaty Bill.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: As the right hon. Gentleman says, it is a rather heavy programme, but we are asking the House to get through it to-day, in order to facilitate the winding up of the Session by the end of the month. If that object is to be achieved—and regard must be paid to the convenience of another place—it will be necessary to dispose of the first four Orders to-day. I think the Prime Minister gave that information to the House yesterday. The fifth Order on the Paper is really not a Bill of this House, but a Bill I understand of the Parliament of Northern Ireland. They are very anxious, however, to get it as quickly as possible, and I am informed that it is really non-contentious. We should like therefore to get these Orders to-day. In regard to the Unemployment Insurance Bill, we had a very long discussion on the Money Resolution on Friday, when practically the whole of the sitting was devoted to it, and, while we have no desire whatever to restrict discussion upon it, I do not think the House will find it necessary to occupy a very long time upon this first Order. At any rate, we are very anxious—and indeed it is necessary if we are to rise at the end of the month—to get through this business to-day. On the other hand, we have no desire to keep the House sitting late. In regard to the London Naval Treaty Bill, the Prime Minister, I believe, intimated yesterday that all its stages might be taken to-day, but I do not press that proposal. I am not very well informed in regard to this matter.

Mr. BALDWIN: How many stages will be taken?

Mr. SNOWDEN: We will be satisfied with the one stage, the Second Reading.
Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. P. Snowden.]

The House divided: Ayes, 263: Noes, 135.

Division No. 455.]
AYES.
[3.48 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harris, Percy A.
Murnin, Hugh


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Haycock, A. W.
Nathan, Major H. L.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Naylor, T. E.


Alpass, J. H.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Arnott, John
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Oldfield, J. R.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Herriotts, J.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Ayles, Walter
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hoffman, P. C.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hollins, A.
Palin, John Henry


Barnes, Alfred John
Hopkin, Daniel
Paling, Wilfrid


Barr, James
Horrabin, J. F.
Palmer, E. T.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Perry, S. F.


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Benson, G.
Hutchison, Maj..Gen. Sir R.
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Isaacs, George
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Pole, Major D. G.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Johnston, Thomas
Potts, John S.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, F. Llewellyn. (Flint)
Price, M. P.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Pybus, Percy John


Bromfield, William
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Bromley, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Brooke, W.
Kennedy, Thomas
Raynes, W. R.


Brothers, M.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Richards, R.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Kinley, J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kirkwood, D.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Knight, Holford
Ritson, J.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Romeril, H. G.


Buchanan, G.
Lang, Gordon
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Burgess, F. G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rowson, Guy


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Lathan, G.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cameron, A. G.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Sanders, W. S.


Charleton, H. C.
Lawrence, Susan
Sandham, E.


Chater, Daniel
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Sawyer, G. F.


Church, Major A. G.
Lawson, John James
Scrymgeour, E.


Clarke, J. S.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Scurr, John


Clarke, J. S.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Sexton, James


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lees, J.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Compton, Joseph
Lindley, Fred W.
Sherwood, G. H.


Cove, William G.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shield, George William


Cowan, D. M.
Logan, David Gilbert
Shield, Dr. Drummond


Daggar, George
Longbottom, A. W.
Shillaker, J. F.


Dalton, Hugh
Longden, F.
Shinwell, E.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lowth, Thomas
Simmons, C. J.


Day, Harry
Lunn, William
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sinkinson, George


Duncan, Charles
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sitch, Charles H.


Ede, James Chuter
McElwee, A.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Edge, Sir William
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Edmunds, J. E.
McKinlay, A.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacLaren, Andrew
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Snell, Harry


Egan, W. H.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Elmley, Viscount
McShane, John James
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


England, Colonel A.
Malone, C. L'Estrenge (N'thampton)
Sorensen, R.


Foot, Isaac
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Mansfield, W.
Stephen, Campbell


Freeman, Peter
March, S.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Marcus, M.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Markham, S. F.
Strauss, G. R.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Marley, J.
Sullivan, J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Marshall, Fred
Sutton, J. E.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Mathers, George
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Gill, T. H.
Matters, L. W.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Gillett, George M.
Maxton, James
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Glassey, A. E.
Melville, Sir James
Thurtle, Ernest


Gossling, A. G.
Messer, Fred
Tinker, John Joseph


Gould, F.
Millar, J. D.
Tout, W. J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mills, J. E.
Townend, A. E.


Granville, E.
Milner, Major J.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Gray, Milner
Montague, Frederick
Vaughan, D. J.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Morley, Ralph
Viant, S. P.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Walker, J.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Groves, Thomas E.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Watkins, F. C.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Mort, D. L.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Moses, J. J. H.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Wellock, Wilfred


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Muff, G.
Welsh, James (Paisley)




Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Westwood, Joseph
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


White, H. G.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)



Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Wise, E. F.
William Whiteley.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Eden, Captain Anthony
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Albery, Irving James
Edmondson, Major A. J.
O'Connor, T. J.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Peake, Captain Osbert


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Penny, Sir George


Astor, Viscountess
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Atholl, Duchess of
Fielden, E. B.
Ramsbotham, H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Balniel, Lord
Ganzoni, Sir John
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Beaumont, M. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Berry, Sir George
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Savery, S. S.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)


Boyce, H. L.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Skelton, A. N.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hartington, Marquess of
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Smithers, Waldron


Buchan, John
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Somerset, Thomas


Butler, R. A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Iveagh, Countess of
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Chapman, Sir S.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Christie, J. A.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Lamb, Sir J. O.
Train, J.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Colfox, Major William Philip
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Colman, N. C. D.
Lymington, Viscount
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Cranborne, Viscount
Meller, R. J.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Windsor Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon Sir Philip
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive



Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Mulrhead, A. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Major Sir George Hennessy and




Sir Frederick Thomson.

RATING AND VALUATION (APPORTIONMENT) AMENDMENT.

Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928.
In submitting this Bill for the consideration and, I hope, the acceptance of the House, it is only right to state that it is merely intended to rectify a slight omission in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, which unfortunately escaped notice at the time. Indeed, I have very little doubt that, had the facts been before the Ministry at the time, there would be no need for me to bring this matter before the House
to-day. I think it well to explain the exact position, because it is a very unusual one and only applies to Liverpool and, I understand, part of Sheffield.
Being familiar with the position in Liverpool I will state it as simply as I can. As the House probably knows, the population of Liverpool is about 900,000. The amount of milk consumed in Liverpool is between 40,000 and 45,000 gallons per day. Of that some 20,000 odd gallons come into the City by motor, by road, another 10,000 gallons or so come by rail, and the remaining 12,000 or 13,000 gallons a day are supplied from cows which are kept within the City by what are known in Liverpool as cowkeepers. These cowkeepers produce milk of at least equal standard and quality to that of the
farmers outside. Indeed, a bacteriological examination of milk produced in the City of Liverpool shows 3.1 per cent. of contamination as compared with 6.9 per cent. in the milk from sources outside the City. A large number of these cowkeepers in the City have no land at all. It has been taken away from them for City improvements. They keep their cows in shippons, as they are called in the north, but I think the ordinary southerner calls them cowsheds. They keep and exercise their cows in their yards all the year round and in place of grazing in the summer feed them on hay, new cut grass, mangolds and various expensive cattle foods. They are under the direct eye of the veterinary and public health services in the City, whereas the farmer has laud out in the country and away from such supervision.
The cowkeeper in the City produces milk which is retailed in his immediate area as against having to send it miles by rail or road to a town. There is, therefore, much less risk of contamination, and the milk is fresher because it reaches the consumer more rapidly. During last year, of the cowsheds in the City, which number about 276, there were 2,114 inspections, or roughly eight inspections per cowshed per year, and I can testify, from personal experience and knowledge, that the cowkeepers' milk is looked upon as better milk than any other available in Liverpool. For practically all other purposes, except de-rating, cowkeepers without land have been recognised as carrying on an agricultural pursuit. For instance, they have been classed with agriculture as having to pay agricultural rates of wages, and the Milk Distributive Wages Board have agreed that they come under the same category as agriculture for the production and distribution of milk. They are also exempt from contribution under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, because they are regarded as carrying on an agricultural occupation. Unfortunately for them, in drawing up the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill, the expression "agricultural buildings" was used, which very naturally carries with it an implication that these buildings had land attached to them. The alteration I have to propose is very simple, namely, that the expression "agricultural buildings" in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, Section 2 (2),
shall not be held to exclude any building (other than a dwelling house) being or forming part of the shippons or other buildings without any land adjoining thereto or occupied therewith used for the housing of dairy cattle solely for the purpose of the production of milk.
I realise fully the importance of not opening the door to extension of the Act for border-line cases, but I think this wording will strictly limit the matter to what, I am sure, all will agree was simply an oversight in the original Bill. At the moment, producers of milk—and the best milk—have been placed in the unfortunate position of being handicapped against the farmer and even against their brother cowkeepers, whose land has so far not been appropriated by the City for improvements. I trust I have made it clear that a real injustice exists, and one which can easily be removed by this House, which hardly ever fails to take the fair view in such cases. I hardly expect, at this stage of the Session, to have facilities for getting this Bill into law, but I hope that I may be granted the opportunity of getting it before the Members of this House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir John Sandeman Allen, Mr. Tinne, Mr. Hall-Caine, Colonel Sir James Reynolds, Mr. Mond, and Mr. Logan.

RATING AND VALUATION APPORTIONMENT AMENDMENT BILL,

"to amend the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 248.]

LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT (COMPENSATION).

Mr. LATHAN: I beg to move,
That, leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the payment of compensation for the loss of employment.
It is not inappropriate that this Motion of mine should precede the Motion for the Second Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, because the Bill to which I invite the House to give the First Reading this afternoon is designed to bridge, if not entirely to fill, what many people regard as a very serious gap in social legislation. Its purpose is to secure the
payment of legal minimum compensation to those non-manual workers who are so unfortunate as to be deprived of their employment through no fault of their own, but on account of some action on the part of their employers. It is desirable, perhaps, that I should, at the outset, explain to the House just the type of employed person whom I have in mind when I refer to non-manual workers. I have in my mind that large army of clerical, technical, supervisory and professional and semi-professional workers, who, I believe, Members on all sides of the House will agree, form so important and essential a part in our industrial and commercial organisation. It is not very often that one can charge this kind of employed person with being very vocal. I wish sometimes they were a little more vocal than they are, but, at any rate, it stands to their credit so far as the time of the House is taken up on their behalf, and I hope that consideration will be given to that fact when at last attention is given to a well-founded claim on their part. They have very frequently been overlooked, and I propose to ask the House to-day, in giving the First Reading to this Bill, to remedy the oversight there has been in so far as they are concerned.
My Bill provides that where employment of such persons as I have mentioned is terminated by the employer for reasons other than serious or wilful misconduct on the part of the employed persons, or on attaining the normal retirement age provided for in the superannuation or pension fund of which he or she is a member, or on the abolition of office or situation for which compensation is provided in some other way, the employer shall pay to such employé one-twelfth part of the total remuneration for each completed year of service. In other words, an employed person deprived of his or her position shall be entitled to one month's pay for each year of service, and, further—and this aspect of the case is important—when the employment is terminated by death, bankruptcy or liquidation of the employer, any such amount as is payable under the provisions of the Bill shall have priority as if it were salary or wages payable under the Bankruptcy Act or the Companies Act.
The need for such provision as I suggest in this Bill has, in recent years, become increasingly acute. The old relationships that previously existed between what are known as staff workers, confidential employés and so on, men and women, have been broken down, have been dispelled almost entirely; they are rapidly passing away, if they have not already gone. This is the day of large scheme organisation of industry and commerce, of trustification, of rationalisation—words which are all too familiar to many of us. Those for whom I speak in this matter—and they are many hundreds of thousands—recognise these inevitable tendencies; they cannot help but recognise them, because, being engaged in commercial undertakings, they are naturally realists. But if, as it may be argued, these modern tendencies in industrial and commercial life are in the public interest, as is frequently submitted to this House, then proceeding along lines which have been laid down by Parliament in other Acts, we say that there must be protection for those who, but for such protection, would be seriously victimised and affected by such arrangements.
Perhaps the House will allow me to illustrate the kind of case—all too frequent in industry to-day—that I have in mind. A responsible clerk, an engineer, a shop or store manager, may, after many years of service, be cast adrift, with a month's salary, or less. Examples of this character have recently come under the notice of the National Federation of Professional Workers with which I have been associated for a number of years. A maintenance engineer, with 14 years' satisfactory service, terminated with a month's notice. A draughtsman, 35 years' service, no complaint whatever against him, one week's notice. A confidential secretary, a woman, 50 years of age—and in the case of women the tragedy is even deeper than in the case of men, because the possibility of their securing employment at that age is very remote indeed-21 years service, a month's notice only. A short time ago there was a large scale amalgamation between insurance companies of London, and 100 members of the clerical staff with service ranging up to 20 years were dispensed with at one month's notice only. A shop manager of a big
multiple firm, with 30 years' service, taken ill through overwork, one week's notice. The firm declined to pay him even a week's pay in respect of his annual holiday which was due. The great bulk of these people are not covered by the Unemployment Insurance Acts.
I want to say here, in case there should be any misunderstanding, that I desire to draw no invidious distinction between the class of employed persons to which I refer and the large number of persons who come within range of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, but I am sure the House will realise that, whatever the difficulties of the ordinary worker may be, the case of the employed person of the type to which I have referred in the later years of his or her life is infinitely more difficult when cast adrift. Not only does this apply to people engaged in industry and commerce, but to men employed on the Press. Journalists are affected. Through the combination of two papers in London a few weeks ago, 600 men were affected, I am told. Some of the men on the editorial side went to the office in the evening entirely ignorant of the face that their paper would not be produced, and their services would not be required.
The principle that I am asking the House to recognise is not a new principle. It has been recognised by Parliament, whenever it has had foresight, in the case of workers affected by Acts dealing with The Metropolitan Water Board, dock amalgamation, railways, and local and national government service. It is recognised in industry and commerce as far as directors are concerned when they are displaced from their positions. Only a day or two ago the newspapers contained information with regard to a case where each one of a board of directors is to receive seven years' compensation for loss of office. We say that what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. We have previously taken pride in this country in the belief that we led, as I think we do, in social legislation, but in this respect we are behind. In Germany, Austria, Belgium, France and Italy, provision has been made along varying lines to meet the cases of the kind to which I have referred. In submitting this Bill, I ask the House to place this country in the position which,
I hope, all of us believe it should occupy in regard to legislation of this character, and I hope that the House will unanimously give the First Reading to this Bill.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I want to pass some criticism on a statement made by the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Lathan). He said he wished to give compensation to the professional class in this country, or what might be called the non-manual workers, for loss of employment which might come about, say, by amalgamation or the process of rationalisation.

Mr. LATHAN: May I put the hon. Member right? He is entirely under a misapprehension if he believes that I referred only to the professional worker. I referred to the non-manual worker.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I said the professional or non-manual worker. I had in my mind the professional worker as a non-manual worker. I have two lines of criticism to offer to this Bill. First of all, I object to the Statutes of this country, if I can possibly avoid it, picking out for preferential treatment one section of the community. The way in which the hon. Member ought to attack this problem is by facing the facts. Undeniably, as he states, professional and non-manual workers are being displaced in many cases in a cruel, brutal and callous fashion. That, however, does not apply to them alone; it applies also to manual workers. We are told that the difference is that a large section of the non-manual workers are not covered by unemployment insurance, but the non-manual worker who is not so covered usually has over £5 a week. Those who have less than £5 are covered in the same way, in most cases, as every other worker. We are being asked for compensation for the man of £5 a week who has had 20 years steady service and has been given a month's notice. I have had eight years steady work, and if anybody had told me that I was going to have eight years steady work at £400 a year, I would not have believed them. We are told that we are to pick out these people, who are comparatively speaking the fortunate ones among the working classes, for special treatment, and quite obviously it is wrong.
In these days of rationalisation, laboursaving machinery, and combinations of firms, we cannot pick out one class of worker for special treatment. The Government are aiding, and all Governments are aiding the process of rationalisation, and if men are going to be displaced, it ought to be a State and a community charge. If compensation is to be paid, we ought to bring within the ambit of unemployment insurance every class of worker, no matter what his income may be. Having done that, we ought to see that the income of the unemployed ought to be made sufficient to meet family needs. The moulder displaced through the oncoming of machinery, after having had only eight months work, and never having been sure of 12 months steady work in his life, ought to be given the same income as the professional class when he is unemployed. Some of us tried to get a provision of that sort under the last Unemployment Insurance Bill, and under the Coal Mines Bill we attempted to get a Clause to provide compensation for the miner who is in a much worse position than the non-manual worker. I am not going to carry this to a Division, but I do not want the feeling to grow up that the non-manual worker and the professional person should have preferential treatment over the rest of the community. I am going to make my stand for the poorer section of the community. The hon. Member says that they get unemployment insurance, but they get it through their own money, and they do not get compensation. In order to be logical, the hon. Member ought to bring in a Bill to compensate not merely the fairly well-off, but every worker who is turned out of work through circumstances over which he has no control.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lathan, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dickson, Mr. Gill, Mrs. Hamilton, Mr. Hoffman, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Walkden, and Major Church.

LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT (COMPENSATION) BILL,

"to provide for the payment of compensation for the loss of employment," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 249.]

BILLS REPORTED.

REDCROSS STREET BURIAL GROUND (BRISTOL) BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

HARTLEPOOL GAS AND WATER BILL [Lords] (CERTIFIED BILL).

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Friday, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December.

LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION (QUAY EXTENSION, ETC.) BILL [Lords] (CERTIFIED BILL).

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Friday, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December.

BOSTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (South Molton Rural) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Doncaster, Saint Ives (Cornwall), and Scarborough) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Brighton) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Accrington, Bognor Regis, and Newton Abbot) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Great Torrington, Minehead, and Taf Fechan Water Supply Board) Bill,
Invergordon Water Supply Bill, without Amendment.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill, with Amendments.

COAL MINES BILL.

That they have agreed to the Amendment made by the Commons to their Amendment to the Coal Mines Bill, without Amendment.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.

LOCAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE.

Special Report, with an Appendix, brought up, and read; Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings to be printed.

PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES' REPORTS.

Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 4) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The object of the Bill is a very simple one of one Clause. The House is well aware of my views on this subject. I bring forward this Bill with the greatest reluctance, but it is the least obnoxious form of measure. I cannot contemplate bringing in a Bill to raise contributions, or to lower benefits, or to ask for larger contributions from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think that it has been taken for granted more or less, as it was last Friday, that there is no alternative to this proposal. If unemployment continues as at present, the limit of the borrowing powers may be reached before autumn, and it is that that leads me to fulfil the promise which I made last March. I should like to read what I said to the House:
I am not going to prophesy. I have always taken up the position that it is not possible for anyone to foresee what is going to happen to British industry in the next two or three years. Whatever statement is made can only be guesswork. My business as custodian of the Fund is to make an arithmetical calculation, and that is all that I propose to give to the Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1930; col. 794, Vol. 237.]
I went on to say that if the live register remained at or about 1,600,000, the £10,000,000 would be exhausted by November next, and in that case I should have to come to the House and reconsider the situation before the House rises for the summer Recess. I much regret that I have to come to the House again before it rises for the summer Recess. Certain calculations are made in the White Paper, which have been distributed, but in the debate last Friday, there were one or two questions asking for still further figures which I gladly give. The figures that I gave brought us up to the exhaustion of the borrowing powers by March, 1931, if the average live register remained at 1,900,000. If the average on the live register continues to be round about 2,000,000, the borrowing
powers will be exhausted by January, 1931. With the live register at 2,100,000, it would mean that the Fund would be exhausted by the end of December, 1930. If the live register reaches 2,300,000, the Fund will be exhausted by the end of November. I want to emphasise the fact that these are average figures and that means that as the register has not yet reached 2,000,000, it will require to rise above the figure I have mentioned if the average is to be maintained.
All that I am concerned with at the moment, therefore, is to fortify the resources of the Fund so that, unless a catastrophe happens, the revenue will meet the expenditure until the House meets again. Naturally, I hope that I have left myself an ample margin, but I do not think that anybody will consider that it would be possible to prophesy even about that. I can only hope that I have left an ample margin to cover the needs until the House meets again. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) was good enough to tell us on Friday what he would have said had he been Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. The right hon. Gentleman was too modest. I would like him to have said what would have happened if he had remained Minister. The debt would not have been £43,000,000 but £53,000,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] About 170,000 claims allowed under the present Act would have been disallowed. About 84 per cent. of the total live register would have been receiving benefit instead of the present 93 per cent. Therefore, it would have been very helpful if the right hon. Gentleman had assumed the position of Minister of Labour while he was prophesying, and have said what he himself would have done if he had been faced with the situation.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: As the right hon. Lady has referred to me, may I ask her whether she is satisfied with the present system of administration?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am coming to that. The point I am making is that whatever the situation now, that would have been the situation if there had been no new Act, and if the figures had remained as they are on the live register under the provisions of the 1927 Act.
That is the basis of the calculation. In spite of the fact that I mentioned that 93 per cent. of the claims made are made under the present Act, there was criticism of the fact that under the not normally in insurable employment condition, people were being struck off the Fund. It is true that some 68,000 claims have been disallowed under that heading, and that is due to the large number of claims that were made by persons not in the insurance field at all. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) exclaimed last Friday:
A figure of 68,000 at the beginning—when the machine has only started to work!"—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 18th July, 1930; col. 1651, Vol. 241.]
He suggested that the 68,000 was a figure that would increase as the months went on. He would be surprised to learn that the machine is not working that way. Although in the four weeks to the 9th June, over 44,000 more claims were made than in the preceding four weeks, the number of disallowances under the "not normally" condition decreased from 28,000 to 20,000. In the same period in Scotland the reduction amounted to 4,630; that is to say in the four weeks to 12th May there were 7,970 disallowances under this head, but for the four weeks ending 9th June there were 3,340 disallowances. That is due to the gradual working off of claims that ought never to have been made.

Mr. STEPHEN: The right hon. Lady said that there were 44,000 additional claims. There were 28,000—

Miss BONDFIELD: No, the hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. The proportion of claims disallowed is lower since the number of claims has increased. It is the total number of claims which has increased by 44,000 in the last four weeks.

Mr. STEPHEN: The point I wanted to know in regard to these additional claims is that it is important to know how many of the additional claims are claims under the transitional conditions, because the not normally in insurable employment condition would not apply to those who could fulfil the statutory condition of 30 stamps in the preceding two years.

Mr. MACPHERSON: The right hon. Lady said that if the late Minister of
Labour had been Minister of Labour now, the Bill would be for £10,000,000 and she went on to say that 173,000 people were taken off the register, whom my right hon. Friend would have left on.

Miss BONDFIELD: I am afraid I cannot have been very clear. I said that 170,000 claims which have been allowed under the present Act would have been disallowed under the 1927 Act and that under the financial provisions of the old law the indebtedness of the Unemployment Fund would have been £53,000,000 instead of £43,000,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because among other things the new financial arrangements have relieved the fund of a considerable burden.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Is the right hon. Lady assuming that the unemployment figure would have been as high as it is at the present time? Is she crediting us with all the incompetence which has been shown by the present Government?

Miss BONDFIELD: To finish off the point with which I was dealing earlier I think the figures demonstrate what I said in the last debate, that there would undoubtedly be difficulty in weeding out the first rush of claims, and that we should not be able to get a really accurate analysis of the situation, and I think we have not yet got it complete. I do not think the process is finished yet but we are showing a diminution in that rush of claims which ought never to have been made because they were not really claimants who could be regarded as entitled to claim unemployment benefit.

Viscountess ASTOR: Were they the direct result of the election promises of the party opposite?

Miss BONDFIELD: No, they were the result of a most misplaced propaganda on the part of certain newspapers which attacked the Act and talked about everybody being able to get benefit whether they were in industry or not. [Interruption. I am quite sure there is no dispute about what I am now going to say, that all parties accept the obligation to give assistance in some form, to some extent, to all unemployed men and
women. In the industrial revolution of the 19th century the workers were left to misery, starvation and death as a result of the changes that took place in industry and the displacement of labour by new machinery. To-day we are in a much more far-reaching revolution of industrial processes, and at the same time we have a far more enlightened social conscience. To-day it is not possible to contemplate leaving the changes brought about by the modern industrial revolution to be borne wholly by the workers themselves. No party, even if it wished to, would dare to enforce a policy of starvation on the workers in this crisis, especially on those who through no fault of their own are unemployed.
I am not saying this so much for the benefit of this House as to try to meet some of the uninformed criticisms about unemployment insurance that one meets with in the daily Press, but there are three points of view from which unemployment insurance is accepted in this House. It has come to stay, whatever modifications may be required. It is undoubtedly true that from the standpoint of the community unemployment insurance has been a guarantee of the peace of the realm. Imagine a situation in which there were 2,000,000 unemployed, no insurance scheme at all, bankrupt local authorities, indiscriminate charity, bread lines, riots, credit shaken and general demoralisation and terror. If the community had to choose between the present situation and a situation like that there is no doubt which the community would choose.
It has become fashionable for great newspapers to complain about the burden thrown on employers, but very large groups of employers do not take part in that criticism, because they know better. Unemployment insurance has enabled them to maintain a reserve of labour in a state of comparative efficiency such as would be quite impossible otherwise, and it has enabled them to limit their commitments in hard times. I will go further and say—though it is open to argument whether it is a wise or right thing to do—that in my opinion some employers have taken advantage of the scheme in ways which were never contemplated. It is open to argument whether this should be a method
by which employers should ease the situation with regard to their wages bill; but if they deliberately plan their work so as to have so many days' work and so many days' unemployment benefit then quite obviously they are the last people in the world who ought to complain of the increased taxation arising from this source. They have benefited immensely by the existence of the unemployment insurance scheme.
From the workers' point of view I think there is no disagreement that the fact of unemployment insurance being in existence has prevented misery and demoralisation and that it goes some way towards mitigating the horrors and haunting fear of unemployment from which most of us on this side of the House have suffered at one time or another in our lives. I feel profoundly glad to think that this generation of workers has not been dogged by exactly that kind of fear. Present conditions are bad enough, but there is not that kind of fear that dogged us when we were in the midst of our industrial lives.
Then it is said, and it is emphasised again and again in newspapers until it becomes a kind of slogan that the dole is demoralising people. I must insist that it is not the unemployment benefit that causes the demoralisation, but the unemployment. If we have to pay unemployed people, and everybody must admit that we must, which is the better way to pay them? Is it better for an unemployed man who has been a wage earner to go on outdoor relief, to get unemployment benefit, or is it better for him to be facing either starvation or charity with soup kitchens and bread lines? There is no doubt in my mind that the system of unemployment insurance is the best, the most economical and the most commonsense way of dealing with the situation.
The criticism is also offered that money is being wasted because under the present Acts the conditions are too easily satisfied. But was the old method so satisfactory financially. We are paying out more in benefit. The additional cost of the latest Act is about £12,000,000 a year on the basis of the present high live register, but what was the result of the old method? It is quite true that we did not pay out so much from the central fund, but the guardians were
spending huge sums, we were bankrupting the local authorities, and finally, in despair, there was the Lord Mayor's Fund. Is that more economical, is that more satisfactory? I very much doubt it. We would not claim for one moment that we have saved money on the unemployed. We have shifted the burden from local to national funds. I think we can all sympathise with the difficulties of my predecessor, and I have no doubt—although I fundamentally disagree with his methods, and, as far as I am able to understand it, with his point of view—that under the mask of party hostility he sympathises with me. No Minister of Labour has an easy task, no matter to what party he belongs, and I am sure that all hon. Members who have been intimately connected with the Ministry of Labour will realise that the problems are far too complex and important to be the subject of mere party scores. [HON. MEMBERS: "Murderers!"]
I will put before the Committee some of the unemployment insurance problems confronting me at the moment, all closely related to the question immediately before us. We all know the financial position. At this moment, with a high live register, we have the annual expenditure of the fund exceeding the revenue by £25,000,000, and we have a debt of £43,000,000, although we have transferred the cost of transitional benefits to the Exchequer. It may be asked, Is there a correct relation between contributions and benefits? Are the benefits too low, as many of my hon. Friends think, or are they too high, as hon. Members opposite think? Are the contributions adjusted to the benefits in relation to the different categories of the unemployed and the incidence of unemployment?
With regard to the conditions for receiving benefit, it is yet too early to judge the effect of the new conditions. I remember in connection with the 1927 Act that it was not until the following January that we began to get a true reflex of its effects. I think we shall probably have an earlier reflex of the 1930 Act, but a great machine like that of the unemployment insurance scheme works slowly in dealing with a change like that. I myself am satisfied, however, that we now have a truer index of the actual number of the unemployed
and of the categories of the unemployed. No doubt a few are getting benefit who ought not to get it, and I think that some are not getting benefit who ought to have it. There are border line cases for which we have not yet a sufficiently sensitive adjudicating machinery to feel perfectly certain that in every case absolute justice takes place; but there is a very vast difference in the attitude of the adjudicating machine towards these problems as compared with the position several years ago.
Then there is the question of the transitional benefits. Is it right or wrong that transitional benefits should be used under cover of or through the machinery of an unemployment insurance scheme to maintain the unemployment benefit? And what is the alternative? Is it suggested that we should hand over those now on transitional benefits to public assistance committees. Is it wise to create a third intermediate scheme? I am not going to attempt to give answers to these questions to-day. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley) who said on Friday that it is futile to pass panicky legislation. There is no question of panic, there is no question of doing other than facing quite wisely and very earnestly a situation the like of which this country has never had to face before. We shall make an honest attempt to legislate, when the time comes, on the basis of the ascertained facts.
I wish to deal briefly with some of the subsidiary problems which arise out of these larger problems. They will have to be considered before we can be satisfied that the system under which we are now spending the money for which we are asking is the best possible system. There is a group of problems which most of us will agree, I think, require special treatment, because they are not adapted to the flat rate principle or flat rate basis of the scheme. For example, there is the question of married women. Could anything be more different than the position of married women in Lancashire and in Birmingham? In Lancashire, of the total number of married women, 38.8 per cent. are in the cotton trade. Birmingham is a district where married women are practically not employed in industry. In large numbers of firms there is a pro-
hibition on the employment of married women. There is the question of seasonal trades. There is the type of seasonal trade which begins at a definite date and ends at a definite date, and there is the other type of seasonal trade.
Then there is the question of the short-timer and that is in quite a different category. You have a systematic plan in a number of cases for larger groups of surplus labour to be employed. Of course they are working on what might be described as systematic short time and it is a question as to whether something ought not to be done in these cases. There is very much to be said on the other side in connection with the question of short time. I believe that a few years ago it was a definite policy to encourage short time rather than adopt a system of dismissal. Short time is a very good thing in order to meet a temporary difficulty. It is quite obvious that the elderly married worker and the young chronically unemployed man each require quite specialist treatment and the ordinary method does not do justice to them. They require far more remedial treatment.
There is another problem interlocking with this—not precisely coming under the same heading but affecting the whole basis of the fund—I mean the overlapping with non-insured occupations. There is insurance up to a certain point and we have to deal with the trouble created by the bar which ends insurance at a certain point. There is the borderline where labour is constantly required to be passed over the line from one industry to another. I am not at all satisfied that we have reached a satisfactory basis in dealing with this matter. Generally speaking there are two main groups outside insurance which have a great influence on the situation—I refer to agriculture and training for domestic service. We have heard a great deal in the papers about hay-making. Many letters have appeared in the papers relating to persons who have refused the job of hay-making. I will give one illustration of the loose manner in which people who know nothing about industry talk on this question. It is claimed that it is possible for farmers to make more use of the machinery of the Employment Exchanges for different kinds of casual
labour. Very often it is found quite impossible to dovetail in casual labour of the kind required by the farmer, and for any person to imagine that any industrial worker can suddenly turn to hay-making and become a suitable substitute for that purpose shows a complete misunderstanding of the labour problem. Whenever I hear farmers talking about the difficulty they have of obtaining labour, I cannot help feeling that the employers are greatly to blame who permit jobs to be offered and refused without helping us to maintain the notification of those facts in connection with the Employment Exchanges. The Employment Exchange is not merely for insured persons but it is a place for the exchange of all forms of labour, and I ask that we should have more assistance from all those who know where jobs are waiting in the way of notification.

Viscountess ASTOR: In my own experience, I have known of five or six cases where men were offered jobs and refused them, and in one case a man was receiving from 33s. to 36s. as unemployment pay when they would only get 30s. for the employment which was offered them. What is going to happen in cases like that?

Miss BONDFIELD: That is an illustration of what I have been trying to explain. Why are those jobs not notified to the Employment Exchanges? The Exchanges would then have an idea of the conditions under which the jobs were being offered, and whether they were jobs which a man on the register was competent to fill.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think it is clear that those men came from the Employment Exchange.

Miss BONDFIELD: The job referred to was evidently not a suitable one, otherwise they would have been refused benefit.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the Minister of Labour kindly look into this case thoroughly? We have heard of a number of people refusing domestic service, and the "Daily Mail" has tremendously exaggerated these cases. I assure the right hon. Lady that what I have stated is going on, and I think she ought to make a pronouncement upon it and look into this question.

Miss BONDFIELD: The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) mentioned a case where a person was drawing 36s. a week unemployment pay. I think that must have been the case of a man with a wife and a large family. If the wages offered to the Northampton man were 25s. a week and he has to maintain his wife and family, say in Northampton, while he had to go into lodgings else- where, it is quite obvious that that wage would not be sufficient.

Viscountess ASTOR: In the case I mentioned there was exactly 3s. difference between what the man was drawing as unemployment pay and what he would get at work. From the point of view of social structure, would it not have been better for the man to have been working?

Miss BONDFIELD: There is only 3s. difference, but what was the extra cost to the worker? I will undertake to look into the Northampton case myself.
The next great factor which complicates the situation, is declining emigration. Comparing the 10 years 1904–13 with the 10 years 1919–28, this decline has amounted to 1,275,000 persons, or, say, an insured population of 400,000 persons. That means that there are 1,275,000 persons in this country to-day who, under the normal flow of emigration would not have been here. [An HON. MEMBER: "They will not go abroad!"] I do not think that the Ministry of Labour can be held responsible for this check in emigration.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The Minister of Labour has just given us a very important figure. I put the number on a previous occasion at between 250,000 and 300,000. Has the right hon. Lady allowed for the death-rate during the last 10 years?

Miss BONDFIELD: I believe that all the relevant factors have been taken into account in the figure which I have given for 1919–28. Another great factor is the displacement of labour in consequence of rationalisation with all its attendant difficulties. This has proved to be a very difficult problem in isolated areas where the whole community has been dependent on one particular works. There is the case of a large firm in Wales which had works in other parts of the country. That
firm decided that the least efficient plant should be scrapped, and that other works should be developed. That change means leaving a population of something like 500 persons absolutely stranded. That problem has to be faced by the movement of the population or by maintenance while the industry is being reconstructed. It is questionable whether the charge in a case like that ought to be placed upon the Unemployment Insurance Fund. That is a kind of risk which was never contemplated when unemployment insurance was framed.
Finally, there is the question of the reorganisation of boards of guardians as public assistance committees. Those committees are only just getting to work, and the exact relation of their work to the work of the Exchanges needs to be defined, and that work is proceeding at the present time. On all these questions we are weighing up the evidence which is being collected. We are being helped by such committees as the Committee on Dock Labour, and the National Advisory Council for Juvenile Employment (England and Wales), which has just submitted to me a most valuable report on the training of unemployed boys and girls who are not covered by the existing scheme of centres.
I think the survey which I have given to the House shows that these problems cannot be treated as party problems. Whatever party is in power there must be unemployment insurance. What we have to decide is how the scheme can be developed so that the man who has to work for wages and the woman who has to work for wages, shall not be left to starve but shall be assisted before the destitution point is reached. We earnestly hope that the parties opposite will be willing to enter into consultation with us with a view to an agreed solution of these problems. We have our ideas; they have theirs. Let us pool them, and see if in this way we can obtain some measure of agreement on the next Unemployment Insurance Bill to be brought before Parliament. In the meantime while those investigations and consultations are going on, the fund must have money, and that is the reason why I have moved the Second Reading of this Bill.

5.0 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: I am sure that none of us would wish to quarrel with the
right hon. Lady in regard to the survey which she has given to the House of the position, and of the problem with which she is faced. I think, indeed, that most of us would have wished that survey had been still more exhaustive, and that the right hon. Lady had taken steps to answer some of the very many questions which she put. Her speech, indeed, was addressed to herself; it was a catechism of herself. She reeled off a long string of questions, but they were addressed to herself, to the Parliamentary Secretary, and to the First Commissioner of Works. They were not addressed to the late Lord Privy Seal, who, as somebody said recently, has retreated to the Dominions Office and bolted the door. They were not addressed to the hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley), because he is now, perhaps, the chief of her accusers. To whom could they have been addressed? The right hon. Lady represents the Government of the day; she represents the authority of Parliament in dealing with these tremendous problems. It is not enough for her to come down here and place before the House a number of questions. We should by this time have had some indication from the right hon. Lady what she expects to find in the way of answers.
Let us consider the situation. We have the figures this morning showing that 1,939,000 persons are out of work, or 803,000 more than there were at this time last year. We have the speech of the present Lord Privy Seal, who went to Wales and told the people there that in Glamorganshire there were 22 per cent. unemployed a year ago, while to-day there are 30 per cent. unemployed; that in Monmouthshire 22 per cent. were unemployed a year ago, and 28 per cent. are unemployed to-day; and he then went on to say:
The figures of unemployment are mounting week by week, and indicate that during the approaching winter there will be a larger volume of unemployment than at any other time in the history of the country.
That is the serious position that we have to meet, and the time is running on. The right hon. Lady herself took, under the principal Act, only a year for the transitional period. That transitional period runs out at the end of next March. She
has given us no indication of what legislation she proposes to bring before the House to deal with that tremendous problem. She has told us the appalling fact that at present the deficit which the fund is incurring has reached £25,000,000 a year. That is in addition to the £15,000,000 or £16,000,000 which the State is finding; it is in addition to the £18,000,000 extra which the State is finding for the transitional period. The State is feeding this fund from the Exchequer with some £34,000,000, and, in addition to that the right hon. Lady is asking the House to-day to give her an instalment of a deficit which is amounting to £25,000,000 for a single year. The whole revenue of the National Debt, the whole service of the Debt before the War, was between £26,000,000 and £27,000,000 a year. Every pound that this country had ever borowed and not repaid was being served by a sum less than the deficit of this fund to-day. That fund was begun in the reign of Charles II, it was funded in the reign of William III, it bore the strain of the Dutch wars, the French wars, the Napoleonic wars—[An HON. MEMBER: "The American War!"]—and the American War—the winning of an Empire—and the whole service of that fund was less than the deficit which has been announced to us to-day. This is merely an instalment for a year, with nothing more at the end of that period than the recommencement of another period of borrowing. If we had come down to the House in such a position, the roof would have been torn off this building with the indignation of the Opposition. Hon. and right hon. Members would have been carried screaming from the House. Hon. and right hon. Members have been expelled from this House for far less than the right hon. Lady comes down with to-day.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Right hon. Members? Who are they?

Major ELLIOT: The right hon. Gentleman the late Mr. Wheatley was expelled from the House, as we all know—

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: And Mr. Lansbury.

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): No!

Viscountess ASTOR: You ought to have been!

Mr. LANSBURY: Ah!

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, in regard to this policy, there has been a change of heart since then?

Major ELLIOT: We agree that everybody's heart has changed except that of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). We understand that he is still unchanged, that he stands by his election pledges; and he puts them on the Floor of the House as well as at the street corner. It is quite true that there has been a change of heart. There are the effects of office; there is the necessity of supporting the Government; there is the desirability of avoiding by-elections and general elections. I see before me the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), who can speak as to the effect of the policy of the Government during the past year. The hon. Member only got in by, first of all, receiving a letter of congratulation or support from the Prime Minister, and then denouncing the Prime Minister and his Government in every possible way.

Mr. McGOVERN: It was imposed upon me.

Major ELLIOT: We now hear that the letter was imposed upon him. He would have sent it back, but he did not know the Prime Minister's address; he might be here, he might be there, or he might be somewhere else. Had the hon. Gentleman, who is now the Member and was then the candidate for that Division, known where to return the letter to, he would have returned it. Such is the support which the right hon. Lady is obtaining for her Government by the course of action which she and the Front Government Bench are pursuing at the present time. It is not the intention of the Opposition to divide against this Bill; it is not our intention to divide against the Motion, following the precedent which was set when hon. Members opposite were in Opposition. It is quite true that you cannot go to the unemployed and say that the shutters have been put up, that the enormous social effort which all this represents has been brought to an end. We cannot break faith with these people; but what about the faith that has been broken with the 803,000 who are now out of work, and who, when we were in office, were in remunerative
employment? It was on that faith that they returned hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the present Government have a long and bitter reckoning to settle with them.
Here is the position with which the House is faced. We are making the worst of both worlds. The right hon. Lady said that she could not go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask him for more money, but she is going to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and asking him for more money. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was very proud of the Estimates of expenditure which he placed before the House on the Third Reading of the Bill. He said that £10,500,000 would be required. He was not only wrong, but he was wrong to the extent of over 50 per cent. in his Estimates. The right hon. Lady recently said that the expenditure of the transitional period would be, not £10,500,000, but £18,000,000; and the most recent Estimate which she gave in answer to a question to-day ran to more than that.
The expenditure which the right hon. Lady is bringing before the House is an expenditure in borrowing and an expenditure in taxation. Borrowing really is only one half of the policy. The other half is the Supplementary Estimate of £8,000,000, which will be not less than £10,000,000 when the full figures are ascertained. That will be an extra burden on the Budget of this year. There will be £25,000,000 raised by borrowing and £10,000,000 on a Supplementary Estimate. These are the figures which the House has to realise on the Second Reading of this Bill. The Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is shattered by these figures for the transitional period. And then the right hon. Lady puts a string of questions to herself. She might have put them to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. She might ask him if he is now as proud of what he said on the 16th December, 1929. He then said:
We are piling up expenditure"—
for what?—
in order to try to bring the finances of this country into an honest and a sound condition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1929; col. 1096, Vol. 233.]
Is he so pleased with the condition into which he has brought the finances of this country? Are they so very sound to-day,
with this £25,000,000 of borrowing and a Supplementary Estimate for some £10,000,000 which will be laid in a few months' time? The Chancellor of the Exchequer explained as recently as last week—on the 16th July—his unemployment policy. It is one of the most astounding policies that has ever been laid before this country. He said:
If you bring a foreign workman into this country to take the job of a British workman, he puts the British workman out of employment; but if the foreign workman produces goods in his own country to send here, he is providing employment for the British workman."—[OFFICTAL REPORT, 16th July, 1930; col. 1322, Vol. 241.]
If a foreign seamstress at Dover is working with her sewing machine making garments, she is throwing a British seamstress out of work But when that sewing machine is wheeled on to the Channel steamer, as it passes across the Channel it comes nearer and nearer to the neutral or balancing point at which it will begin to provide employment for a British seamstress, until, after it has passed mid-Channel, it becomes a piece of machinery for providing employment for British workers, and, by the time it is landed at Calais, every time that she turns the treadle she is providing employment for a British worker. These are the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, had they not been used in all seriousness, I could not have believed them. I only believed that they were serious because the Chancellor of the Exchequer accompanied them with one of his characteristic sneers when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) found some difficulty in accepting this astounding proposition.
The proposals which are brought forward to deal with the present situation are, no doubt, excellent in themselves. The borrowing must be carried on. The right hon. Lady has torn up all her previous declarations of principle, and they have now become declarations merely of regret. At first she wrapped herself in a mantle of virtue. Then she said, "I am upon a rake's progress, but my rakishness is not as progressive as that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth." That plea, too, has disappeared. She has beaten my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland). Her progress
in rakishness is now at a super-Schneider Trophy speed. She is rolling down the road to destruction with roses in her hair and the wine of borrowed money in her goblet.
The right hon. Lady may consider that she desires consultation with all parties in this House, but are we so very able to enter into consultation with the right hon. Lady in an all-party conference and sign an all-party report? Do we not remember another all-party conference into which the right hon. Lady entered, and another all-party report to which she affixed her signature? She was subsequently unable to adhere to the scales of benefit which had been agreed upon in that report—[Interruption.] I refer to the Blanesburgh Report. Was that report so thoroughly adhered to that it is desirable that all parties should enter into consultation and sign again a report which may be thrown over by one of its signatories? If now we could go into consultation, if we could examine these questions to the bottom, if we could come to agreed findings and facts as to these questions, I am sure that all of us on this side of the House would be more than glad. There are many of these grave questions which I believe cannot be solved simply by one party, and on which a solution is impossible if one party begins to compete against another for votes as the result of some small advantage which is seen projecting out of the report, or of the conclusions, once they have been reached. But if it can be shown that there will be a full examination and a rigid adherence to the conclusions then arrived at, I should be more than glad to examine such a proposition with a desire to find a solution to a problem which reflects upon Parliament, and not upon any of the parties in this House so much as on all of them.
We are the guardians of a trust fund. It is an easy matter to obtain popularity by distributing trust funds. It is an easy matter to gain applause by taking the easy course, but some day or other the difficult course has to be taken. Sooner or later the Chancellor of the Exchequer, faced with the mounting deficit which arises out of figures such as these, will be forced to put before the country what the right hon. Lady says she dare not put before the House of Commons now. Are the benefits to be lowered? Are the
contributions to be raised? Is borrowing to continue? There are only three solutions. If we are to accept the right hon. Lady's figures as normal, running into an order of 2,000,000 or 2,250,000 unemployed people, raising the contribution or lowering the benefits will become an immediate and an urgent necessity. We do not believe that figures such as we are now struggling under should be regarded as anything like normal, that there should be one man in six, or one in five, out of work and not able to engage in productive industry. But that demands an openness of mind, a readiness to consider alternative schemes and new problems which the Government so far has shown very little sign of acceding to. Last night the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he considers that in the next Budget some slight modification of the rigid principles of orthodoxy might be indulged in the case of the Sinking Fund. He will need to go further than that before a solution of the problem is reached. We have brought forward a solution. We have brought forward the suggestion that for the sempstress crossing the Channel on the boat, making her garments, the salt water has no magic quality in washing away all competitive stain from the garments as they enter this country.
The proposals that have been brought forward and accepted in every country in the world except ours may perhaps have some bearing upon the state of unemployment. We know the Scottish story of the old lady looking out of the window as a regiment marched by saying, "They are all out of step but our John." It may be that every country in the world is out of step except Great Britain, but the figure of 1,939,000 unemployed, and 803,000 more unemployed than last year, lends very little colour to that hypothesis. We are told there is unemployment in America and in Germany. But unemployment in Germany is going down, and in Great Britain it is going up. The Under-Secretary on the last occasion said unemployment in Germany was 3,000,000. The answer given by the Minister to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) showed that since that time the figures of the unemployed have fallen by some 300,000, with an insured population of 17,000,000. We are reaching the unemployment figure
of Germany, which has 2,600,000, with a very much smaller insured population. There is not much comfort for the right hon. Lady there. It is said there are a great number of unemployed in America. America has had for ten years the biggest boom the world has ever known and, if we could have ten years of a boom like that, I should be willing to risk a year or a year and a half of unemployment. We have had no boom and the slump is getting worse. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not much risk!"] Not much as long as the hon. Member continues in the position and supports the policy of the present Government.
The right hon. Lady brought forward some most interesting suggestions to herself. She said, "Is the rationalisation of industry the sort of problem for which the Insurance Fund was created?" I think not. But let her not stop at suggesting these things to herself. Let her take some action on them. She said, "Can we make some use of the public assistance committees? Is it desirable that the geographical organisation of this country should be entirely omitted in dealing with this problem—that we should work entirely upon this functional organisation, the organisation of the Ministry of Labour." I think not, but let her consider that. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Gorbals says it is absolutely wrong. He will need to settle that with the right hon. Lady. When it is a question of dealing with a regional organisation I am certain something on the lines of a regional organisation, for at least the transitional period, will need to be adopted. At any rate that is a suggestion which we on this side and the right hon. Lady would be glad to consider together, but when she considers these things, and when she asks us to come into a conference, she must be sure that she speaks also for the hon. Member for Gorbals. She spoke of the enormous question of emigration. That is another matter that we should be glad to consider, but all these things need more than suggestions. They need a willing mind to act upon them, and the willingness of the right hon. Lady is not enough unless she also secures willingness to act upon them from some of her friends on the back benches.

Mr. BUCHANAN: She needs more than our consent. The Under-Secretary for Scotland has a very strong record of opposition.

Viscountess ASTOR: And bear in mind that directly after the War, when we preached emigration, every Socialist in the country said, "We will not send our sons abroad."

Major ELLIOT: The right hon. Lady is bringing up many of the proposals that were brought up from our side of the House and bitterly attacked by hon. Members opposite. The proposals as to transfer and as to emigration and all these things were bitterly attacked when they were advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth. [Interruption.] The hon. Member will need to discuss the matter with the Minister. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Shettleston must not impose anything upon me. I send the letter back to his address. I know where he is. The suggestion is being made by his Minister and his Government, and those are the people with whom he must discuss it. The proposals that have been considered to-day go far beyond the scope of a Bill such as this. Obviously, as was said by the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Dickson), we are dealing here with the arrival of the ambulance, but the accident is a matter of concern to the nation as a whole. The national policy which has led up to this is a matter for close and anxious consideration by everyone of us. There have been periods of abundance in the past. These have led to prosperity, to great works of construction and of building. It is not a matter for one party but for all, why abundance should come to us in the sinister guise of over-production, why it should be said the Americans are about to grow so much wheat that we shall all starve to death, and the miners to cut so much coal that we shall all freeze.
A solution of these tremendous questions is demanded. It will not be a party solution. It will certainly not be found in any gospel of hate. If we attack these questions in a spirit of bitterness and hostility, we shall deal with the question of the surplus all right. We shall destroy the surplus and there will be nothing for either of us to have. To enjoy what modern medicine and
modern science have put into the hands of the human race—that is the problem before every one of us. It is a problem that is represented by figures such as we have here to-day. A problem of 1,900,000 people whose labour should be utilised, but for some reason or other we find ourselves unable to utilise it. It is a problem of taking advantage of all the great things which science and art and industry have won for us. If we approach these things in a spirit of comradeship we can succeed, but if we approach them in the spirit of those who have monopolised the title of "comrade" in one of the bitterest quarrels the human race has ever inherited, we shall not succeed. If we can rise to the height of the things which fortune is offering us, a great future awaits, not merely this country but all the civilised white countries which have gone through the industrial revolution, but if we approach it in the line of a bitter quarrel continued until we destroy the surplus and have to start to build amongst the ruins, we shall not achieve it and it will be said of our generation, as it has been said of past generations, that the gods were too kind to them. They fulfilled their prayer and it was impossible for them to utilise the gifts which a bountiful Providence desired to offer them.

Mr. TINKER: I do not doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman's sincerity, but in the latter part of his speech I was wondering whether he meant it all. If he was sincere in what he said, we can agree with him on the solution of our problem. I can see that there is strong ground between us. In the other part of his speech he seemed to go out to rival the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). I want to correct him on one matter. He said, if that side of the House had come forward for borrowing powers the roof would have been lifted by this side against him.

Major ELLIOT: I said if we had come forward with an increase of 800,000 unemployed the roof of the House would have been lifted.

Mr. TINKER: I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that we should have objected to borrowing powers, and I want to correct that idea. In the last Parliament, when the late Minister of Labour came to the House for borrowing powers, we welcomed the pro-
posal and pointed out that anything on those lines would always be welcome, because we realised that these people had to be dealt with. With regard to the fund, we were told by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that we were losing about £450,000 per week, and that that was why it was necessary to borrow. He went on to say that in 1920 we had £22,000,000 in excess of requirements, and that the accumulated surplus of £22,000,000 disappeared in eight months. Looking at the figures for 1921, I found that during that year the unemployment figure reached the 22 per cent. rate which we have not reached at the present time, but evidently we are on the way towards that point. Our present indebtedness is £43,000,000. It will very shortly be £50,000,000, and the £10,000,000 for which we are now asking will make the total still greater.
We are now paying 5 per cent. on the borrowed money, and I ask the House whether it is right that interest should be paid upon money borrowed for this purpose? On £50,000,000 at 5 per cent. we shall have to pay £2,500,000. That sum will be placed against the fund, and will have to be met later on by the contributions of the workers and employers. Is it right that the contributions of workers and employers should have to bear this added burden? I have the strongest objection to this money having to bear interest. The House of Commons, sooner or later, will have to deal with this matter. The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley), speaking on Friday, made a remark to the effect that it was certainly not thought that we should have to pay the money back. He said:
Let us face up to the fact that this is not a loan at all. A year ago in similar circumstances the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained to us that there was no possible chance of this loan ever being paid back."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1930; col. 1663, Vol. 241.]
I think that it will be better for the House of Commons to face up to the matter and do away with the question of the money being a loan, and make it a gift, as it were, to the fund.

Viscountess ASTOR: Do I understand the hon. Member to say that it was unfair that the burden should fall upon the employers and the workers?

Mr. TINKER: I stated that the money which we are borrowing now will have to be met by the contributions generally of the employers, the workmen and the State. Apart from the Exchequer, two bodies will have to pay the accumulated debt. In my view, the interest on the borrowed money should not be added to the sum which will have to be paid back. It is unfair, because later on, when the Fund becomes normal, it is proposed that the contributions shall fall to 6d. all round. At present, the contribution by the employer is 8d., by the worker 7½d., and by the State 8d. But the contributions will fall to 6d. all round when the debt has been cleared off. Contributions cannot fall until the whole of the debt has been paid off. The interest should not be debited against the Fund. The present rate of contributions will continue as long as the debt remains.
I find, on looking into the question of the application of the Fund, that at the present time the unemployed women contributors to the Fund have risen from 6 per cent. last year to 15 per cent., having practically caught up with the male unemployed workers. The problem is greater than it has ever been. We can always visualise the possibility of men getting back to employment, but no one knows how to deal with the females. I am not speaking in any sense against female workers. When we create schemes of employment, there is never any thought of females being brought into them. The result is that when mills close down, we have a greater surplus of female labour. One wonders how it is going to be dealt with in the future. This is a matter which will have to be faced by the House of Commons. I want the Minister of Labour to take a serious view of that aspect of the case. I put down a question the other week to find out how the figures compared, and I was amazed to find that the percentage of female workers unemployed was practically equal to that of the men, and that there had been a greater increase than ever before.
When I hear hon. Members speaking about the Fund being the "dole," I wish they could realise what is the attitude of many of the employers at the present time. In Lancashire, in a district I know best, a mining district, we have men suffering from miner's nystagmus and other forms of injury, and, owing to the
Workmen's Compensation Act being weak in certain places, the employers are having these men examined. If they find that these men are what are termed only partially incapacitated, compensation is in some cases being taken away altogether and in other cases it is being reduced, with the result that the men concerned are being driven to the Employment Exchange, which is thereby having to carry a burden which should be borne by the employers. Now that the coal trade is becoming worse, large numbers of men are being driven to the Employment Exchange. As the Minister of Labour put the position the other day, when an application is made at the Employment Exchange for workers, only the very best workers are sent, and therefore these derelicts of industry will never get back to employment. They are there for all time, as far as I can see.
What is to be done with them? The employers do not want the cast-off workers. There is an ever-growing number of workers of that kind being thrown on to the Fund. They have to be kept by some one. It must be remembered that these men are not wastrels but men who have given of their best to industry, and they are hoping that something will be done for them, for their position is almost hopeless. I ask the Minister of Labour, when she is sending out the very best men—and employers will only have the very best men—to remember these poor individuals who have practically no hope at all. The Unemployment Fund cannot provide for them all the time. The time must come when we shall have to take men and women, who have no chance of getting work again, off the Unemployment Fund, and we shall have to treat them as being in a different category. They must be put upon a different plane. Something more will have to be done for them, but the Fund will have to be a separate fund.
There is the old age pension at 65. When that provision came into operation, the employers cast off the old workmen, saying, "You can have the old age pension now." What is happening at the present time? On Saturday last I attended a meeting of men's representatives in Lancashire when it was reported that at certain collieries all the men of 60 years and over had received notices.
Some of these men had worked at the colliery for 20 or 30 years. There has been an amalgamation. The head of the amalgamation has said, "We must have no aged workmen." He sent word to the manager that all workmen over 60 years of age had to be discharged. The manager has been seen by the workmen's representative, and it was stated that they did not like to have to do this sort of thing but they had to carry out orders. These men have now to go to the Employment Exchange for five years with very little hope of getting any employment. No men over 60 years of age will be sent out, so that the Fund will have to bear the burden of these men for five years. This has been brought about through no fault of the workmen, but because of the state of employment and of society at the present time.
I hope that the House of Commons will realise what it means to unemployed men and women who have no hope of getting employment. Unless something is done, I am afraid that something tragic may happen. I recall the words which were used by the Financial Secretary on Friday last when he made a very true remark to the effect that if it had not been for this Fund, he wondered what would have happened to this country. If the Government had not met the position by giving greater benefits to the unemployed and by borrowing powers, the crisis would have come. I hope that the House will do everything possible in future to make the position better for the men whom I have described.

Sir GEORGE PENNY: I am sure a good many Members in this House will agree with many of the points which have been put forward by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), but the Minister of Labour in dealing with the fund said very little as to root causes. I am one of those who feel that the necessity for this Bill is another glaring instance of the abject failure of the Socialist Government since they have been in office. It is impossible for anyone in this House to oppose a Bill of this nature in view of the parlous plight in which we find the fund and also the great figure of unemployment which is mounting up week by week and which, I feel sure, will reach a still larger figure as long as the present Government remain in office. The definite cure
which was proclaimed throughout the country a year or two ago has either been lost or it never existed. I would tell hon. Members on the opposite side that many of their supporters hold the latter view. It does not surprise me that at one of those little cheery family gatherings which are held upstairs by the Labour party the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have told his friends that he considered the present time would be disastrous for them to have an election. They have done nothing to help the position. In fact, they have gone out of their way on many occasions to aggravate it. By their profligate expenditure, by their increased taxation, by the feeling of insecurity which they have created, our great industries are paralysed and dying to-day. We see works and factories closed down or only working part time, and our great export trade rapidly passing into the hands of the foreigner.
To make the position still worse, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the other day, removed duties from industries which were gradually picking up. The workers in those industries appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to do this and the trades union representatives interested in those particular industries also appealed to him, but he paid no heed and only turned a deaf ear to them. He has always said that he wants to see men in employment, with a high standard of living, as we all do, but when he had the chance of doing something to bring that about, he did nothing. He reminds me of the man in a high position who was approached by a friend in trouble who told him his plight, and said: "I have been robbed by the foreigners. I have lost my work. My family are starving and I have nothing to give them. I want work. Can you help me?" Having listened with much sympathy, the great man rang the bell on his desk, and hope came to the heart of his visitor, but when the attendant came, he merely said: "Show this poor fellow out! He is simply breaking my heart!" That is the kind of sympathy that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given to the men who are out of employment and want work.
We know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer did in regard to the McKenna Duties. Whether it was an act of providence or whether it was pressure on
the part of more far-seeing colleagues of his, I do not know, but those duties were allowed to remain, and thereby a great number of people who would have been unemployed were kept at work. But even in that act of grace the right hon. Gentleman stultified his action by raising a feeling of uncertainty as to whether the duties will be continued or not. In regard to the forthcoming Imperial Conference, he stated the other day what his position would be. He seems to be going to that Conference determined not to budge from his worn-out ideas and fallacies. We want to see him go into the Conference determined to explore every avenue whereby additional employment can be provided for our people. We saw what Mr. Scullin, the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia, said last week regarding the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He said:
It is the absence of a sound Protectionist policy, which allowed Australia to be flooded with imports, which has brought Australia to her present difficult position. I decline to believe Mr. Snowden's intention to bang securely and bolt the door against open discussion at the Imperial Conference on the whole question of reciprocal trade.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Dunnico): That subject is entirely outside the scope of this Bill. The hon. Member cannot discuss on this Bill a fiscal policy to be proposed at the Imperial Conference.

Sir G. PENNY: I am very sorry if I have trespassed, but I was hoping to show that the policy which is being pursued is going to make potential applicants for the benefits of this Fund within a very short period if we do not take care. I understood that the Chair was going to allow us to have a somewhat wide discussion. I do not wish to deal with the fiscal policy as such, but the point upon which I was speaking I felt affected the employment of our people.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member and other hon. Members are quite entitled in a broad general way to discuss the problem of unemployment and to suggest and indicate ways in which the money asked for might be more profitably spent, but they must be relevant to the subject of this Bill. It is obvious that almost every conceivable subject might be dragged in on this question of unem-
ployment, but as I stated in a previous debate there are limits to the latitude which the Chair can allow.

Sir G. PENNY: In speaking to-day I am speaking in all seriousness and with a desire to help towards a solution of the problem. Although I may say things which grate upon the feelings of hon. Members and right hon. Members opposite, I speak with deep sincerity, in order that the Minister of Labour may look into the questions that I bring to her notice. I was pointing out that the actions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer have done much to retard our advance in the direction that we wish to go. I have a great personal friendship for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and admiration for his ability and intellectual powers, but I think it is a tragedy that Providence should have endowed him with a faculty which overrides them all, and that is his mulish obstinacy. The more he is urged to do a thing or consider it, the more he pulls back from it. That has been a great drawback to the country. His colleagues have come forward to make excuses regarding the need for this Fund. They say that it is due to world causes that we are in our present plight. Of course there are world-wide causes at work which make it extraordinarily difficult for all of us, but all our trouble cannot be put down to those causes. It is no good coming to this House and reading statistics, and saying that the position might have been worse. That is no help to our unemployed. The more optimistic Ministers even go so far as to say that there is a silver lining to every cloud. I heard of a Jew the other day who said, "What is the use of a silver lining, with silver at its present price?" That is the kind of thing that we are offering as a hope to those who are seeking employment.
There is one thing that I am going to say about the trade unions. I realise what great good the trade unions have done to their members in the past. I believe in trade unionism, so long as it works for the interests of its members; but at the present time in many directions the reverse is being done. By the rigid demarcation of work and by the lack of flexibility, it is impossible for men to give full scope to their energies and enterprise. We hear much about rationalisa-
tion and making industry efficient. We want employers to rationalise, and I would also appeal to trade unionists to get the operatives to rationalise. They do not want longer hours or lower wages, nor do I want them to come about, but we have to realise that we must produce at a competitive cost if we are to retain work for our people. Therefore, I would ask the trade unionists to look at the matter from that aspect. Many trade union leaders are beginning to look facts in the face, and I want those who represent the political side of trade unions in this House to do the same thing. We have seen as regards ship repairing that by the rigid demarcation of work and the lack of flexibility, our costs are increased, work cannot be done within a specified time, and contracts which would have employed our men are placed abroad.
There is another matter to which I would direct attention. The Minister of Labour told us that there are nearly 500,000 women unemployed, 248,000 of whom are unmarried women. It seems paradoxical to have this great volume of unemployment among women, and at the same time see column after column of advertisements in the newspapers for housekeepers, domestic servants, nursery governesses, nursemaids, and such like. Cannot the committee of inquiry with regard to employment investigate the position? There is a feeling abroad that domestic service is derogatory to women. Solid work is derogatory to none. I want to see every job in this country filled, and if we could ensure that some of these unemployed people were put into these vacant jobs, I should be very pleased to do all that I could to assist the Minister of Labour in the task. The War altered the relative position of men and women as regards the employment. To-day, we see large numbers of women being employed in Government offices, and I want to know whether the committee is looking into that question to find out how many additional men have consequently been placed on the dole. I naturally wish to see our women employed, but I do not want to see them employed to the detriment of men.

Viscountess ASTOR: Why not?

Sir G. PENNY: I hold the view that women have greater opportunities than men of getting posts in domestic service,
or in occupations of that kind. We have heard of complaints having been made by employers who have taken on men, and the Minister of Labour said that these were only loose statements. I can assure her that that is not so, for I have many cases that I could put before her. There are men who take on jobs for two or three hours; they do not like the job and then they chuck it. They go away, and do not say a word—[Interruption.] I can assure hon. Members that in taking about this matter I am stating facts and the Employment Exchanges have supplied them. Here is an extract from a report of the Birmingham authorities in regard to one of their unemployment relief schemes:
We are experiencing great difficulty with a number of the men sent to the work"—
They had applied to the Employment Exchange—
who, in many cases, only work a few hours, and occasionally a few days, when they clear off and we hear nothing more of them. The result has been recently that we are having men coming and going all the time, which is completely disorganising our work, increasing the cost and making everything extremely difficult. As an instance, we applied for 12 men last week; 11 of them reported on the job, five of them refused to start work at all, and of the six who actually did start, four of them only stopped there about 10 minutes, and then cleared off.
Those are points which I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister of Labour. I am not doing so in any spirit of antagonism. I want the whole position to be looked into, so that that kind of thing can be prevented, because it stigmatises the men who really want to work, and we know the majority do, and it is up to all in this House to try to assist them all we possibly can. I do not want to see the man who wants work and is prepared to do his bit, having to bear the stigma of actions such as those to which I have referred.

Miss BONDFIELD: I have had no such complaint from that quarter, and I should be very grateful if the hon. Member would give me the details.

Sir G. PENNY: I shall be very glad to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is your authority?"] I will give it to the Minister. In speaking of the altered conditions of the time, I think we shall also have an alteration in this House.
We want to see it, as the Prime Minister and others have suggested, more a Council of State than just a debating society of delegates, as it is at the present time. We hear hon. Members representing trade unions putting forward their own little particular case, quite heedless of the bigger things. I want to see a far larger outlook taken on national questions by all. A case in point was the incident which took place the other day when the party below the Gangway pressed one of their own Amendments to the Finance Bill, which was supported by their leader, on the question of reducing unemployment. When the Division was called they behaved like a covey of startled partridges not knowing where to go. That kind of thing not only does their party harm but brings this House into disrepute. I want to see all parties working more in co-operation on all matters and national interests given more consideration than party manœuvres.
6.0 p.m.
The position is had and there are signs and portents which make me think there are still worse times ahead. Foreign countries are adding to their reserves of gold—[HON. MEMBERS: "Our gold!"] Hon. Members opposite are so accustomed to trifling with a matter like this when it does not affect their particular trade union that they will not listen to one who is speaking seriously. I do not mind, nor do I take any heed of it, but I do want those who seriously think out the problems of this country to consider the welfare of the people. The position is bad, and I am wondering whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has much hope of getting the revenue for which he is budgeting. We are spending additional money every day—

Mr. SPEAKER: We really must get back to the Unemployment Insurance Bill.

Sir G. PENNY: The Bill refers to a loan. This is not a loan at all. It is unproductive expenditure, and will have to be met. It is time we called a halt, otherwise we shall be in such a position that trade and industry will fly from this country and our workers will be worse off still. We have to remember that trade and commerce are our lifeblood, and if they fail, the poorest of our community will suffer most.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Sir G. Penny) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his sporting allegory. He seems to have brought to the House a speech which he might most appropriately have delivered on the Finance Bill last Tuesday or the Third Reading of the Finance Bill next Friday. The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) who opened the debate made, as he always does, not merely an interesting but a very able speech, and he rendered a very useful service in bringing into proper perspective the large sum of money which this House is asked to sanction this afternoon in relation to some of the great national tasks which this country has faced in the past. I should like to add another figure by way of illustration and not as a criticism; and that is that in the pursuit of methods for dealing with unemployment every Government without any exception has followed the line of least resistance; that is, to rely upon relief rather than getting down to a consideration of the root causes and the provision of work. As a result of the policy which has been pursued by all Governments in the past, we have now expended in relief a sum greatly in excess of £500,000,000, and if that sum is to be augmented at the rate now proposed, and is to continue, it will soon be equivalent to the capital expenditure of our municipal authorities on revenue-producing plant.
The Minister of Labour has appealed to all Members of the House for a joint consideration of this question, and the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove replied to that appeal in terms with which I wish to associate myself. There is good reason why all parties should agree to co-operate in this matter. They have all contributed in their degree and in their time to the present position of this fund. They have varied to some degree in their methods, but all parties have contributed to the condition in which we now find ourselves. According to my observations, which are of course somewhat limited but which are a sample I have no doubt of the whole country, a change is taking place in the minds of the unemployed. There is increasing indignation and, quite naturally, a growing bitterness at their enforced idleness. They see work which could be done and work which they know
ought to be done, and they cannot understand why some of it is not put in hand.
I do not intend to develop an argument on this point, but I was reminded at Question time to-day of a matter relating to the rate of house building in this country. We have just sent to another place a Bill for the removal of slums, with inducements to local authorities to touch that part of the housing question, which, in spite of the great efforts made since the War, still remains untouched, that is, the clearance of slums. There are well over 100,000 men in the building trade unemployed to-day, and there are a large number of men who normally would be occupied in trades ancillary to the building trade who are also unemployed. There is no reason why any one of these men should be unemployed at all, and, as a contribution to this matter, this House should decide, if the inducements in this Bill are not sufficient, to treat the matter as an emergency question and see that these men are no longer unemployed.
I sincerely hope that a Bill of this kind will not come before this House again in this form. We have been drifting, and this legislation is in a most unsatisfactory state. The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove has put certain questions to the right hon. Lady. They are very important questions, and I propose to add to the list of interrogatories which are floating about the House. There is a great deal of fiction and pretence as to the present position of our unemployment legislation. What about this debt of £50,000,000? Is it suggested that it is a potential tax upon industry, to be suspended and launched upon our industries when they emerge, as they will in due time, from the world crisis? Is it to be a tax to be levied by means of a stamp tax on employment? Is it seriously suggested that this is to be the reward of industry when it begins to struggle again to its feet? That question will have to be faced and a decision taken upon it at no distant date.
Other questions were raised by the Minister of Labour, and I heard with some surprise her observations upon the policy of employers in relation to short-term employment. She said that they had no call for complaint because they had the advantage of being able to stand-off their employés for three days at a
time. I suggest that a question which calls for urgent and earnest inquiry is the result of our whole policy of unemployment insurance upon the creation of irregular short-term unemployment. I do not congratulate the employers upon it. It may be an advantage to them, but there is another side to the question, and that is, how far the provision which is made makes employers less keen and determined, if you like less sympathetic, to keep their men employed. Is it not possible that this very provision is the source of the creation of short-term unemployment which otherwise would not exist? Again, as the right hon. Lady most properly said, the question of married women requires careful consideration. When we were engaged for so long on Clause 4 of the Act of this year, certain aspects of the Clause in relation to married women escaped the attention of the House. Hon. Members were earnestly trying to remove what they considered to be the injustice of the genuinely-seeking-work Clause, and concentrated largely upon that one aspect, with the result that other important matters escaped wtihout the attention which they deserved. That is a matter which calls for serious consideration.
In one of our earlier debates on this subject I ventured to draw the attention of the House to the question of the internal incidence of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The debt itself is a big potential tax on industry, but the whole thing as it works out is not merely a tax upon industry, but falls very unfairly and very unevenly. Take the insurance years 1924–28. The distributive and allied trades in those years have paid into this Fund £9,620,000. On the other hand, over the same period, the shipbuilding and repairing industries have withdrawn from the Fund £10,250,000. I could go on illustrating the matter by quoting figures from other industries, but that is sufficient to make my point clear, and the inquiry which the Government have in hand, dealing not merely with unemployment insurance, but with the whole question of social insurance, should now give special attention to this point and consider whether this method of dealing with the burden of unemployment insurance is, in equity and from the point of view of sound economics, the best
way for the country as a whole. In an earlier debate, the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) touched upon this subject. He almost seemed to suggest that the time would come when the Whole thing would be revised, and when it would become a national charge on a non-contributory basis. On that point, however, he seemed not to be quite definite. I do suggest to the Minister of Labour that this inquiry ought to be directed with earnestness to this particular point.
I would like to stand beside the Minister of Labour in entering a protest against the continued accusations of demoralisation in relation to Unemployment Insurance. To my mind it is a singular thing that these stories of demoralisation, the accusations of laxity and of deterioration of character, are always launched by those newspapers which are particularly identified with offers, without any premium whatsoever, of free insurance for almost anything. Such newspapers are those which are particularly identified with the attacks upon the unemployed and their alleged demoralisation. There are two reasons why the charges are false. One is that the character of the people who are unemployed is such that they are not to be demoralised by any benefits which have been offered them hitherto by any Government in this country. The other reason is that this life upon the dole, which, according to these periodicals, one might imagine was a life of leisured ease, free from care, and punctuated with visits to the cinema and the public house, is really not life at all, but a drab and dreary existence.
In past years it has been a marvel to me how those who have had to live for a long period on the dole have managed to live at all. I have made it my business to find out how they do it. It is a weary existence. If they have been on the dole for a long time it is an iron ration of bread and margarine. The need of a pair of boots is a domestic problem of great gravity. The presence of an invalid in the house is a source of torment and agony to the mind, because there is no means by which the delicacies and extras which are required in those circumstances can be supplied. If there is a need for a pair of boots, how are they to be obtained? By going to some
second-hand shop, buying a second-hand pair, then buying a little bit of leather elsewhere, and cobbling up the boots. The necessity for a new suit of clothes is indeed a tragedy. That is the life which light-hearted people and journalists describe as something which is demoralising to the people of this country. It is a life which is leading at the present time to increased bitterness and indignation, and it is a challenge to us who sit in this House not to be content with these measures of relief, but really to devote ourselves, with any capacity that we have and with all the good will that we possess, to the only answer to Bills of this kind, and that is the provision of work.

Mr. STEPHEN: I welcome the note on which the last speaker ended his speech, and the protest that he made with regard to criticisms of the dole and of the way in which people are supposed to get easy money through Unemployment Insurance. He instanced the case of certain newspapers, and I certainly would like to join with him in protest against those people who write articles about these poor people who have passed through years of unemployment—writers who themselves obtain fairly large incomes for that kind of writing out of the existence of these poor people. It has been an interesting and a valuable discussion to-day. The Minister of Labour raised many questions which the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) suggested were questions that she was putting to herself. I was interested, however, to note that the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove, at the end, seemed to be willing to enter into some form of co-operation with the Minister of Labour and with the Liberal party in dealing with this problem. Evidently he is not so adamant as the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) with regard to the invitation that was thrown out to the ex-Prime Minister and the Conservative party to co-operate. The Minister of Labour is to be congratulated upon the fact that she can have the co-operation of the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove in this matter.
At this time I do not want to follow in any detail the speech of the hon. and gallant Member. I do not propose to join him in his week-end with the young
lady and her sewing machine across the Channel. I say this to the Minister of Labour, however: That while there are so many problems in connection with Unemployment Insurance, the resolution of a great many of them would be effected if we approached this thing from the point of view from which in the past the Labour party has approached it, that is if we approached it from the point of view of the adoption of the principle of the right to work or adequate maintenance, and accepted that as the basis upon which we are going to deal with the question. We have never managed to get that done. There was introduced this method of social insurance, which laid a certain burden upon the work-people, a certain burden upon the employers, and a certain burden upon the State, and all the time the question has not been the maintenance of the unemployed person or the provision of work for that person, but rather whether it is a sound financial insurance scheme; all the tendency has been to forget the need of the human beings and to think rather of the financial commitments.
The Minister of Labour to-day got a warning that it was to be hoped that this would be the last of this type of Bill to be brought forward, in which we were going to increase the borrowing powers. I think it is a matter of relative unimportance whether we are going to increase the borrowing power of the fund or not—relative unimportance compared with the great human problem of the deterioration of our people because of the fact that they are not in enjoyment of the income that allows them to maintain their homes and to make suitable provision for the physical and mental wellbeing of the members of their families. I believe that that is a matter of supreme importance. If only this House were going to approach the problem from that point of view, I believe there would be a solution of many of our difficulties. The last speaker said that there was rising indignation among unemployed people with regard to their treatment. He spoke of an increase of bitterness. I think that that is true. He also said that the unemployed see that there is so much work to be done, and cannot understand why they are not allowed to do it. I am afraid that I could not follow him in his statement that there is
so much work to be done. Where is this work? The hon. Member suggested the provision of housing. There may be a shortage of houses, but in what else is there a shortage? Always along with it there goes the idea of the new roads that could be made. I believe that the greatest need of all is food and clothing for the people. We could get along with the roads that we have, but what the people are needing more than anything else is food and clothing. They have not got the income for these things. When some of us sought to give so many of the people the incomes that would allow them to buy more of these things that they need we were only a handful in the House. But is it only along those lines that we shall be able adequately to deal with this problem.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: I could have spoken at great length on the point to which the hon. Member has referred. I gave the illustration of housing only because it was a particular instance that arose this afternoon.

Mr. STEPHEN: Of course, I do not wish to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman, but there are many people who talk about the amount of work that is waiting to be done, and I ask what kind of work? The hon. Member for Kingston (Sir G. Penny) brought forward what was perhaps a better illustration. Then there is the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) who is so filled with the possibilities of hay-making. These statements about so much work that is available show a wrong conception of the problem altogether, it is not so much a question of doing work here or there. Every day the rationalisation that is proceeding and the provision of new machines are making more people idle, and it is hopeless to approach the problem from that point of view. It is not rationalisation of production that will provide us with the way out, but the rationalisation of distribution. But we cannot get people to accept rationalisation of distribution, because there is this involved in it—that it will make so many rich people so much the poorer. Because of the great material interests involved we shall never have this problem approached from the right point of view. With regard to these general problems which the Minister of Labour suggested that she was consider-
ing at the present time, I wished to say that they made a very imposing list as she read them out—they looked such great and fundamental issues—but they are only accidents. These problems, I am convinced, are only accidents due to a wrong method of approach to this subject. We have put all the stress on insurance rather than on the principle of the right to work or adequate maintenance.
I wish to deal with some points in connection with the administration of unemployment insurance which are, I think, bound up with the question of the expenditure of this money. The Minister referred to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and said that he had pointed out that 68,716 applicants were refused benefit on the "not normally in insurable employment" ground. She pointed out that while there were 44,000 additional claims in the last month, there had been a fall in the number of refusals from, I think, 28,000 to 20,000, and she evidently took a great measure of comfort from that reduction. But surely one would look for such a reduction in the number of refusals in connection with these claims as compared with the previous year, because, under the "not genuinely seeking work" disqualification, when a person was disqualified he could claim again in six weeks, and if he was refused a second time he could make a third claim in another six weeks. But under the "not normally in insurable employment" condition once you are down you are down for good and all. The Minister of Labour ought to go into these figures and consider the possibility of introducing legislation to get rid of this disqualification.
I have some interesting figures in connection with my own district. This problem is sometimes referred to as a problem of the married woman. It is sometimes said that the list has been swollen because so many married women have claimed who have really no right at all to unemployment benefit. If that were so, some of us would not be as excited about this matter as we are. I find that in the two Exchanges which serve my own district, the Bridgeton and Parkhead Exchanges of Glasgow, from 13th March to 14th April there were 382 disallowances of men's claims and 409 disallowances of women's claims. From
15th April to 12th May there were 757 disallowances of men's claims and 253 disallowances of women's claims, and corresponding figures are shown for the other Glasgow Exchanges. I was also interested to see if this was a Glasgow phenomenon, something due to the administration of our Exchanges as compared with other Exchanges, and by means of questions in this House I got the figures for other Exchanges. I find that the same thing applies in Birmingham, for example, where there were 736 men's claims for a specified period, and 556 of these were disallowed, while in Newcastle-on-Tyne, out of 1,769 men's claims there were 1,181 disallowances.
The Minister knows that most of these people have been in insurable employment. They are being refused benefit because they have had a long period of unemployment. Because of the length of the period of unemployment they are regarded as having gone outside the ambit of insurable employment. It is true that their cases are considered by the courts of referees but in regard to the working of those courts, I find, for example, that registration by courts of referees is being taken as something which has to apply in practically every case. There is an umpire's ruling but the umpire's ruling is being misinterpreted and is quite definitely the opposite of the interpretation put upon it. I suggest to the Minister that she should bring to the notice of the courts of referees what the umpire's ruling is with regard to registration. We have had complaints made in this House in the past in connection with unemployment insurance about the Minister of the day sending out secret notices and secret instructions to local employment committees and that sort of thing, but here is a good opportunity, not for a secret circular, but for an open circular.
I also think that the Minister ought to pay a great deal of attention to the way in which the courts of referees are working in relation to the hearing of cases by incomplete courts. The Parliamentary Secretary when he was in Glasgow, I believe, considered that question among other questions and I myself asked in the House whether the Minister would not definitely make it impossible for a claim to be disallowed by an incomplete court. The Minister told me that she had not the
power. I wish to say here to-day that she has the power. These courts work under regulations made by the Department and laid upon the Table of this House and it is one of those regulations which allows incomplete courts to function. I have put figures before the House regarding the court in my own division showing that out of 1,565 cases heard by incomplete courts, only 13 were allowed to apply to the umpire. It was definitely put into the Statute that the applicant should have the right of going to the umpire if the court was divided in its opinion, but that right is practically being taken away by this procedure.
The Minister may reply that an applicant need not take an incomplete court unless he likes but haw does it work? He is told, perhaps, that his case may not be heard for months or he is told, "You are one of those know-alls" and he has a feeling that he is prejudicing his case. Remember that all the time you are dealing with people who because of their unemployment, because of their poverty, are afraid of coming into a position in which they might incur the hostility of the officials of the Exchange or in which they think they might incur the hostility of those officials. I ask the Minister to consider making a new regulation to the effect that no claim should be disallowed by an incomplete court, but, that where it is an incomplete court, and the person or persons concerned think the claim is one for disallowance on these grounds, they should refer it to a full court so that the full statutory rights meant to be given to the applicants shall really be theirs.
We have heard the statement that "doles" demoralise the recipients. I, myself, have not perhaps a very high opinion of many hon. Members opposite but I think that, on the whole, in very many respects, they compare with people in other parts of the House. I do not think that hon. Members opposite have been unduly demoralised by the doles of which most of them are in receipt. It is quite true that their doles in certain respects are in a different category from those connected with Unemployment Insurance. For one thing, they are very much greater in amount and they may be considered as the legitimate fruit of the wisdom of hon. Members opposite in choosing parents who were able to leave them well-endowed. But what demoral-
ises the unemployed is the smallness of the amount which they receive. They are not able to run their homes properly on what they get. They are up against every kind of difficulty; everything tends to dishearten them, and thus it goes on month by month. They may get employment for a few months and then they are out again and they have to start the weary round over again and face perhaps many more months of unemployment on this pitiful income which does not allow them a decent standard of life. It is that which is demoralising and breaking the spirit of the unemployed, and, consequently, I hope since we have all this talk about a reconsideration of the whole question, that this Labour Government will approach it from the point of view of increasing the amount.
I know the argument that if the amount is increased many of the people in receipt of unemployment benefit will be getting more than people engaged in certain employments. I would make this condition also—if persons can get more money through Unemployment Insurance than they are getting in their employment, then let them go on to the Insurance Fund, and thus force up wages. The curse of to-day is low wages in this and other countries. The surplus production which is not being distributed is choking up everything and is going to lead to many difficulties in the future. I would appeal that, in the working of the Act, the Minister should make it a point to see that there is introduced a change in spirit on the part of the courts of referees by their being made to understand that they are not to strain the law against the applicants.
There is a man, one of my own constituents, who has been for years in insurable employment. He falls out of employment and is out for some years. He has a physical defect—his speech is difficult—and because of this, when he applies for a job, he finds it very difficult to get into employment. I bring the case before the court of referees and to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, who has inquiry made into it, and he says he cannot interfere with the finding of the court of referees. I then take the case further with him, and say, "Here is this individual, who has never been in any employment but insurable employment in
his life, when he has been employed. What are you going to do for him? Can you do something to help him to a job of some kind?" The Parliamentary Secretary writes back that the labouring employment at which this man had worked was such employment that there are few vacancies, and he advises him to keep in touch with the Exchange, although he cannot hold out very much hope.
What is the man to do in the interval? He has no unemployment insurance benefit and no job to be got. He has some impediment in his speech. Then there are others, who have 40 and 50 per cent. disability that they got in the Great War, in seeking to save this country, and they find it almost impossible in these days, with nearly 2,000,000 unemployed, to get a job. What are you going to do with those people? They go to the public assistance committees and try to get what is called Poor Law relief—some of them are single people—but in Glasgow they can hardly get anything from the public assistance committee. They have not been able to live in lodgings but have had to go into a model lodging house, and the idea is that there is something specially wrong with them, whereas what is wrong is not with these individuals, but with this system which has almost 2,000,000 unemployed to-day.
I welcome the speech of the hon. Member for Birkenhead East (Mr. Graham White). I welcome his protest at the way these people are held up, but there is one thing that I would like to go out from this House to-day, and that is that the complaint from the Conservative Opposition in this House is not that the Minister of Labour is not sufficiently generously administering the Act in the proper way to give these people benefit, but the protest from those benches is at the profligacy of expenditure. I want the unemployed people to know how little they are getting compared with what they ought to be getting at the present time, but the Conservative party, the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) and the Members on those benches, are protesting against the profligacy of the expenditure of this Government in making provision for the unemployed.
What is wrong with this Government is not their profligacy, but their economy. I am glad that this time they are coming
and simply bringing in a Bill to increase their borrowing powers. In the previous Measure the State took over the burden of the additional expenditure, but I believe that that money would have been far better spent in providing additional benefit rather than in keeping the debt on this Fund at a smaller figure. That money, distributed to the unemployed, would have been fruitful, and it would have produced employment in a far better way than it has done in simply being an incident in connection with the bookkeeping accounts of this Fund. I do not think that, when the Conservative Members go to the various parts of the country to tell about the misdeeds of this Government, they are going to have a very good case when they say that this Government gave 17s. a week to the unemployed man instead of reducing it, say, to 15s. That is the purport of this accusation of profligacy.
I hope the House is going to approach this matter from the right point of view. The unemployed man and the unemployed woman are entitled to as decent a standard of life as any Member of this House, and I hope that soon the working-class people are going to see that that is achieved. It is said that this problem will only be solved by the co-operation of parties. I do not believe it. It will only be solved by one party, by the working-class party seeing that the workers get the full return for their labour, that there is not created this surplus production, this surplus value that is robbed from them. Give the workers the full product of their labour, and you will solve your problem of unemployment and give to your people a decent standard of life.

Captain EDEN: The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) is profoundly mistaken when he thinks that our charge against the Government to-day is one of profligacy in having given too much money to the unemployed. On the contrary, we condemn the Government, not for its generosity, but for its failure. That is precisely the charge which will be brought against the Government—

Mr. STEPHEN: The hon. Member for Kingston (Sir G. Penny), speaking from those benches, stated that the expenditure was profligate expenditure, and that is all that I said.

Captain EDEN: I am not dealing with the hon. Member for Kingston, but with the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, and I am telling him that the condemnation which he will suffer, without doubt, and deserve, is not the condemnation that he has not spent enough money, but because his Leader, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, wrote to the "Daily Herald," for instance:
In our first Session we shall deal with unemployment and bring relief and hope to the workers of this land. We shall not disappoint those who have shown belief in us.
I suggest that by the time the next General Election comes, hon. Members opposite will be uncomfortably familiar with that pledge. It is neither worth while nor necessary for hon. Members opposite to attempt to explain away that. The confession of failure lay in what the right hon. Lady said in her speech this afternoon. It is not the unemployed whom she was defending; it is not the unemployed who are in the dock; it is not insurance which stands condemned. It is the Government which is in the dock. We know that the mass of the unemployed are genuinely seeking work, but we are confronted with the position, for instance, in my own constituency where there was practically no unemployment a year ago, but where the percentage is comparatively high now. We are confronted with that position, and we expected to hear from the Minister of Labour some explanation as to why we are being asked to provide this new money, or at least some reason why we might hope there was going to be something done to ensure that we should not have to provide still more when the month of November comes. But not a word about policy, nor any explanation of the present state of affairs—only a very interesting but entirely departmental analysis of the working of the present Act. The right hon. Lady took great credit to herself for the working of the Sections which affect benefits, though in point of fact they are not her Sections. She did not put them in the Act. We remember who was responsible for them in the first instance, and it was certainly not the present Government.
I confess that I have listened with growing depression, in the years that I have been in this House, to these debates on unemployment insurance problems,
and we never seem to get any further, but I have never heard a speech from a responsible Minister which had less relation to the facts than that of the right hon. Lady to-day. For all that she said, we might have been in a position where unemployment was going down for the summer and the status of the fund improving, and we might be making provision for an ordinary seasonal rise in the autumn, instead of which we are confronted with figures which are far worse than anything that this country has known hitherto, and still worse if you make allowance for the present time of the year. What is she going to do about it? What proposal is she going to make? There was absolutely no suggestion that she had any realisation even of the seriousness of the present position. It is small wonder that Parliament in these days falls into disrepute, when a Minister of the Crown seems to be so utterly out of touch with the pressing difficulties of the day.
The hon. and gallant Member who spoke on Friday on the Financial Resolution made what seemed to me to be a plea that the figures should be published less frequently. I gather that one of the reasons for that was that these figures have a somewhat demoralising influence upon trade and industry in this country. Certainly I think there is a measure of justification for that, but it is not a question of the publication of figures as such which the Government have to consider, and which they should long since have considered, but it is a question of whether or not the figures that they do publish accurately reflect the position. The right hon. Lady to-day gave us a long explanatory dissertation, dividing these figures into their categories. Yes, but the public as a whole does not read the commentary, but only reads the figures, and in the first place what we need is some fresh arrangement of our insurance system which shall show the figures as they should be shown. That is much more important than suppressing them.
I had not much faith in the election promises of the party opposite, but I did think that, as a Labour Government, if they did nothing else, they would turn their attention to the present position of unemployment insurance and try to put it on some scientific basis. I thought we
should see a genuine insurance system separated from a system of relief, and that if more funds were necessary for relief, they would be made available, but it is not right to saddle this fund with great burdens for which it was never intended and for which its present insolvency is not responsible. I want to ask the Minister whether the Government have under consideration any system that is going to provide this insurance fund so that it has some true relation to our industrial needs and so that we may see the problem of relief, which is an entirely different problem, in its true and correct perspective. I suggest that that is something which the Government might do.
I hope we shall hear no more from the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the wonderful financial integrity which he has set up in this country and of the superiority of his performance over that of his predecessor. We are being asked for another loan of £10,000,000, and so far as one can judge from the right hon. Lady's speech, a further £10,000,000 will be required at the latest in the middle of November, and this is the Government that prides itself on not borrowing! The Chancellor of the Exchequer was telling us last night that he was going to keep the Sinking Fund intact. His pride is to practise financial purity there, so that he can practise financial impurity here. I confess that no one is less entitled to congratulate himself on the financial position of this Fund than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who must bear that responsibility. He is, indeed, in my judgment the Joseph Surface of modern politics. Some people think he would go to the stake for his fiscal and financial purity. I do not believe it except the stake were a sham one and the flames painted cardboard.
7.0 p.m.
What of the future? Surely the hon. Gentleman, when he replies, is going to give some indication of what the Government intend to do with regard to the difficulty with which this Fund and the country are confronted. The hon. Gentleman below the Gangway made one reference; he said we want roads. Roads from Nonsuch to Nowhere. That will not help any of us very much, but I will not discuss that now, because it will be out of order to do so. I would only say
that, in my judgment, there is very little help to be found there. The right hon. Lady herself made reference to two matters where she might find assistance to enable us to carry this Fund through to solvency. Studying this problem of unemployment insurance on broad lines, you have to deal with the sheltered and the unsheltered industries. You will not meet the situation unless you take fully into account the differences between the sheltered and the unsheltered. That is the first essential which the Government must face. The second is this: I wonder whether any present occupant of the Treasury Bench has read the record of nearly 150 years ago, when 40,000 men from the United States of America went in to Canada. The Minister of Labour was complaining just now about the falling off in migration as being one of the troubles which beset us. That is no doubt true, but what is she going to do about it? I believe that a reason for the failure of our migration policy is the fact that we are not dealing with it on a large scale as Wakefield did. We are trying to tinker with the matter; we are sending them out in driblets instead of in waves. Now, I think, is the time to consider the operation of this matter on such a large scale as I have indicated.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): Has the hon. Gentleman taken into consideration the recent financial offer made to the Colonies?

Captain EDEN: Of course I have, but it has never been on such a scale as I have suggested. They have been sent out in driblets. [HON. MEMBERS: "They will not have it."] Why do you not try it on a sufficiently large scale? Why say it is going to fail? Have not the Government failed already? Is not this Bill a confession of failure? I suggest that the matter should be taken into consideration at the forthcoming Imperial Conference. In two days' time a book will be published in Canada by a professor of economies in which a suggestion of this kind receives the warmest support, but, of course, it cannot be carried except on a large scale. How can we expect this Government to do anything on a large scale? I beg Members opposite not to take up the part of inverted
Micawbers, only waiting for something to turn down. If that is to be the attitude to any suggestions made, then, indeed, the outlook is even blacker than it would appear to be.
The Government have an Economic Council. What is it doing about the matter? This is a subject which might well be put before it for consideration. While we are voting more money to-day for the Unemployment Insurance Fund, there are members of the community applying to county councils for small holdings. What steps are to be taken to finance these? Is it not only finance that holds them up? Will the hon. Gentleman look into that matter? Will the Economic Council be asked to consider it and see whether this may be a way of helping to stop the drain on the Unemployment Insurance Fund? I confess that, as I listened to the speech of the Minister, I felt an atmosphere which was described by Dr. Johnson as inspissated gloom. There seemed to be no ray of hope, no indication of any new idea. I hope that before this debate is ended, we may have some assurance that the Government are alive to the position. They have been 18 months in search of a mind and have not yet found it. Before the debate closes, I hope that we shall have an indication that if they are not able to deal with the difficulty, at any rate they have a realisation of its existence and of its tragedy.

Miss RATHBONE: Having listened for a year to the debates on unemployment, I wish to call attention to two or three difficulties. I think that all ought to look at the problem with eyes free from prejudice. Let us see if we can discover the real difficulty. I do not see how overburdened officials, and committee members on various bodies who have to discharge their duties, can, in connection with the test of genuinely seeking work distinguish between those who are genuinely seeking work and the somewhat rare case of the shirker. I do not believe that the best laid scheme of unemployment insurance is going to distinguish between the genuinely seeking work and the person who is not perhaps so anxious as he might be to try to get work. The problem is immeasurably aggravated, I suggest, by our adherence to the British method of flat rates of contributions and flat rates of benefit. I
call it the British method because, as far as I know, it is unique. I do not know of any Continental country where unemployment insurance is carried on by this system of flat rate contributions and benefits. They all either divide the unemployed into groups according to their industrial status, with a special rate of benefit and of contribution, or the rate of contribution and of benefit are expressed as a percentage of their rate of wages.
What is the bearing of that upon the position of the Unemployment Fund which has made this Bill necessary? Consider what happens in the case of the ordinary unskilled man who, perhaps, has a wife and several children. The small contribution that he has to make is a considerable strain upon these wages, although they may not appear so large to the well-paid artisan. With unemployment insurance as it is, his rate of benefit may be nearly, or even more than, his rate of wages. We must all recognise that human nature, being what it is, if a man when out of employment is likely to get as much as or more than when working, there will be a certain tendency for him to relapse the fibre of his efforts to find work. Supposing the insurance were arranged on the German, Dutch or other European standard, this man would then have to pay a smaller sum, which would be less of a burden on his wages, but when he was unemployed he would know that whatever his benefit it would always bear a direct relation to the amount of his earnings while in employment. It works out in some of the Continental countries at 50 per cent.; I think that is the usual rate.
I have often discussed with our British officials the difference between the two systems, and always they have said that to attempt to raise contributions and pay benefits according to the wage of the employed person would be administratively impossible. I have discussed the same idea several times when in Geneva with officials there. When I visited the International Labour Office in Geneva there were a German and a Belgian in charge of that department which has produced the weightiest tome on Unemployment Insurance that we have had, and these officials were familiar with the whole subject. I have always been assured by them that the British system of the flat rate was a sort
of bee in the bonnet of the British official; that it was an insular fact, and that it was a grave obstacle to the standardisation of the whole international system of insurance, which is so important in the eyes of those who realise we shall never have proper labour conditions until we have international standardisation.
The second feature in our insurance policy is the employer's contribution. I make bold to mention this question, which I have not heard alluded to, by the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did once make the statement that he had been opposed to the employer's contribution when the Unemployment Insurance system was first introduced. But from the Members above the Gangway, who are always talking about the burden of these social payments on industry, I have never heard one suggestion made that we might get rid of the employer's contribution. And yet have they asked themselves, if these insurance payments are a burden, what part is a burden on industry? Surely not the worker's payment? I am sure they cannot think that. Also, if we are to believe the Colwyn report, not the contribution of the State, as long as that is levied through Income Tax on the higher range of income. If we examine most of the criticism of Unemployment Insurance we shall see that the employer's contribution is always adhered to. I could develop many reasons to show why employers' contributions are economically unsound and industrially mischievous. I will merely say this. When the reconsideration of the whole scheme is undertaken, might we not consider whether it will not be infinitely less a burden on industry, and more economical, to see that, whatever proportion of the demand that it is thought right and proper to put on the employing class, is paid by them, not through an ad hoc contribution, but as ordinary taxpayers?
I am aware that, in lightly dealing with these two features in our policy, I am dealing with a subject which may seem to some people academic, but is it not about time that, in considering our unemployment policy, we applied to it that same idea of thorough rationalisation which we talk so much about when we consider the rest of our industrial structure? At present, we keep on mend-
ing a patch here in our unemployment insurance system, and mending a leakage there, and putting temporary additions on to a structure which, after all, in its origin, was built up in those post-War times when everybody was in a hurry, and when we were faced with a tremendous problem of unemployment which most of us believed was going to be temporary. It has not proved temporary, and is it not about time that we considered the possibility of building a permanent structure to replace that lath and plaster, corrugated iron building, which we call our unemployment insurance system? I have always felt that insufficient attention was paid to these points, and that just because we are pioneers in the whole world in the matter of health and unemployment insurance, we pay the penalty of pioneers and have not chosen to benefit by the experience while other nations have benefited by our mistakes. Need we always be stuck fast and never pull ourselves out?
I want to deal with a much more familiar question, that of women's unemployment. Several speakers have reminded us of the alarming fact that, though women's unemployment is smaller than men's, because there are fewer women employed than men, women's unemployment has risen at a much higher rate than men's unemployment. There are 400,000 women unemployed, or more than double the number a year ago. We must have a thoroughly specialist consideration of the problem of women's unemployment by the select group of persons, whoever they may be, who are discussing the whole question of unemployment. This House, where 600 out of the 615 Members belong to the male sex, is not likely to dispute the proposition that women's unemployment forms a special problem. Men are apt to over-rate the differences between the sexes, but it forms a special problem, not because of inherent differences between men and women, but because their occupations are mainly different, and their rates of pay are different; and, though men and women are equally subject to the disease of matrimony, it takes them in different ways. The disease of matrimony when it attacks women has a much more disastrous effect on their
industrial career, and that has a vital effect on the whole problem of unemployed women.
I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether three possibilities to mitigate unemployment among women are being explored. First, with regard to relief work: We had from a distinguished Member an example of the masculine attitude towards relief work as applied to women. He said that it was unsuited to women because they could not be put upon afforestation or road work. Therefore, where women's unemployment is concerned, we must only watch and pray. I suggest that if some of that extra skill, which is so abundantly available where men are concerned, were brought to bear upon the problem, it would be found that there were methods that were suitable for women. Secondly, in regard to transference: I do not think that we have been given any information as to whether the Transfer Board has done anything to transfer women. The vast increase in the number of unemployed women has occurred almost entirely in the cotton and textile industries, where the unemployment is brought about by such causes as oriental competition, which make it probable that these districts will never recover their former position. It is no use watching and praying until the cotton and textile women workers are re-absorbed into industries in Lancashire. They are the very cream of our industrial women workers. They are skilled, they are organised and self-dependent kind of women, who are accustomed to remain in industry throughout life, and do not look upon it as a steeping stone towards domestic life. They are women who could form valuable groups, as at one period in history the Huguenots formed in British industry; if they were moved to the southern counties, their fresh vigour might bring life into those industries which, in some cases, have an unsatisfied demand for women workers.
Thirdly, there is the problem of training. So far as I can make out, hardly anything is being done in this matter, except for that one occupation of domestic service. I do not belittle domestic service, and I want to take this opportunity of saying that I believe that some Members opposite are by their
cruel thoughtlessness doing harm by the contempt that they are apt to pour on domestic service as an opening for women. They are strengthening a tendency, which they will admit is really a snobbish tendency, to believe that a woman loses caste when she engages in domestic service, although she does not lose caste if she does unpaid work at home for her father and mother. It is equally useless to speak, as hon. Members on this side sometimes do, as if domestic service were the universal panacea to cure women's unemployment. The truth is that domestic service is wholly unsuited to many of the unemployed women. If they offered themselves for domestic service, they could not get it. It is a mistake to suppose that domestic service is anybody's job. It is skilled work, and many employers would rather go without servants than take an untrained girl out of a Lancashire or Yorkshire mill. In addition, there are many of the unemployed women who have domestic service duties which prevent them taking residential occupations, and many who by natural aptitude are not fitted for service.
I ask the Government to explore much more thoroughly than they have done the possibilities of training women for other occupations. For thirty years I have been pleading for a greater development of day training schools for women and girls. We are far behind nearly every European country, and especially France which is a serious competitor in many of the industries which could employ so many women. There should be real co-operation for this development between the Ministry of Labour, the body that is providing unemployment grants for relief work, and the Board of Education. There ought to be some representation of women on whatever committees are dealing with special aspects of unemployment, and it would be as well if there were a special committee of women of experience in various problems connected with unemployment to act as an advisory committee to whatever main committee is dealing with the task.

Miss LEE: I welcome the stress that has been laid by the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) on unemployment as it applies to women, but I am afraid that she does not quite appreciate the reasons why some of us on
these Benches have put up opposition to domestic service. In domestic service, as in factory or any other kind of work, there is a law of supply and demand, and we may be reasonably sure that if the wages and conditions were sufficiently good, there would be no natural lack of workers, especially in these days when the general level of wages and conditions are low enough. Further, we are gravely concerned because the Employment Exchanges, unwittingly perhaps, but in a very real way, are being made an instrument with which to reduce the status, and very often the wages of women, once they become unemployed. I have tried without success to get a definite reply from the Minister of Labour to the question whether a woman who is trained in office work, factory work, or shop work is free to refuse domestic service, and not thereby jeopardise her right to benefit. I can get no definite answer. I find in the west of Scotland, and I would not be surprised if it applies to a much wider area, that once women become unemployed, whether they have been shop workers, factory workers, or any other kind of workers, they very soon find that they are offered domestic service. I am certain that Members of the House would very soon object, if every time a butcher or a baker or a carpenter became unemployed, he was offered manual labour on the worst conditions and level of wages.
Our objection to domestic service is that very often we find women against their will forced into this sphere of work, and, once they are in it, they have two great difficulties to contend with. Domestic service is not an insured occupation, and, in addition to all her other troubles, this woman is faced with the position that she might again find herself unemployed, and no longer entitled to benefit. Once this woman accepts domestic service, she finds that she is not on the spot to hear of offers of work in her own employment, or, if she finds that there is an opening in the factories, a woman who has been more recently employed, and has not changed her employment to any other kind of occupation, has a much better chance of getting the opening. Therefore, I ask the House to realise that, in objecting to pushing women into domestic service irrespective of the consequences, it is not because we do not want employment for women, but because
we want that employment to be found on fair and reasonable terms.
We want the Government to give more time and thought than they have given to the provision of schemes that will modify the unemployment problem among women. We on these benches do not expect the Government to come forward with schemes that will cure unemployment. One of the fundamental things about Socialism, and one of the reasons why there is a Socialist movement, is because we know that unemployment is an integral part of the system, and so long as we have this present system, we shall have unemployment. I believe that we might modify it slightly, and I believe that we ought to be employing more men and women in the building trades.
I am afraid I do not share the optimism of the Liberals that they are going to do very much by their road schemes. Indeed, one finds that in the case of roads, as of everything else, the machines are doing the major part of the work and this problem of the machines must force the House, if it is going to square up to the issue of unemployment, to realise that there will be permanently a number of people who cannot be brought into industry. What surprises me about the attitude of the Government is not that they are not doing the impossible, curing unemployment, but that they go on bearing all the humiliation of having the figure of nearly 2,000,000 unemployed held up before them as the unemployed army.
We come here to-day to pass this Financial Bill with apologies, as a kind of makeshift, whereas we could be spending the money on sections of some of the 2,000,000 proudly and with credit if only we used a little discrimination and did not treat the 2,000,000 as one lump but divided them into the different elements of which that figure is composed. I want to see the Government reducing the number of people who are not employed by taking out those who are so old that they never again will be employed, by taking out all those over 65—or let it be an earlier age if it must be so, if the machines are coming in so rapidly—and spending money in giving an honourable and a reasonable pension to those old men instead of giving it in the form of a dole.
Even £1 a week as a pension will be more acceptable than 17s. as unemployment benefit. At the other end, the children who are now on the labour market could be provided for with maintenance allowance. That would reflect infinitely more credit on the Government than they get by spending this money in an indiscriminate lump on unemployment benefit.
To come back to the position put before us by the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot). He stated the case very well, although I am afraid he is not prepared to apply the remedy. The position is that we are producing so rapidly from our coalfields, our wheat-fields and from other sources that we cannot consume all the commodities at present on our hands, and it is absurd to suggest that we should tackle this problem by trying by any artificial means to create more work. We on these benches, if we had the power to deal with it, have the remedy. Hon. Members opposite are far off the mark when they imagine that they can go to the country and put forward a case that will condemn the Government on the unemployment issue. They are under-estimating the level of education among the working class, who realise that there always will be unemployment and poverty until all this wealth which is at our command is more fairly divided. The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove was pleading eloquently for a remedy, but he is far too well versed in the Socialist case as well as in the Tory case not to know that we could do a great deal to solve the problem he stated if more money went into the ordinary homes of this country. The hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities said there are women unemployed in Lancashire and Yorkshire who will probably never be employed again. It is a difficult problem, puzzling the wisest heads, to know what to do with these women, but I do not think any hon. Member can contradict me when I say that we could employ at least some of them in their old occupations if there were a larger demand for cotton and woollen goods and all the other things of which we find there is a scarcity in the homes of the country.
In speaking to-day, I am not asking the Government to do the impossible, but am asking hon. Members opposite to realise that there
is a Socialist case which contends that by the proper scientic distribution as well as the production of the wealth of this country we could abolish both poverty and unemployment. But that is not within our present power. What is within our present power is to provide more adequately for men and women who are unemployed. I hope that before the winter comes the Government will reconsider the allowances for the unemployed, particularly for the children. A most eloquent appeal was made from the Liberal Benches describing how an unemployed worker went to a secondhand shop to buy a pair of shoes, and to another shop to buy a patch to put upon them. We cannot claim that we do not know the poverty problem, that we do not know the worry and the pinching and the scraping. If what was described happened in a house where there is no children, we all know that things must be a thousand times worse where there are children, and any hon. Member ought to be ashamed to get up and show how well he or she knows the poverty problem unless at the same time he or she is willing to go into the Division Lobby in favour of more adequate maintenance allowances, particularly for the children. That is what I ask the Government to do, to give the old unemployed an honourable position, a more care-free position, by giving them old age pensions instead of the dole, and by providing for the young workers.
In this House we are inclined to say "provide work"—of any kind, at any wages, under any conditions; if only work is provided for a man he ought to be grateful and happy ever afterwards. I want our Minister of Labour to pay more attention to the conditions under which men are working on road and similar schemes. There is not a silver lining, but a very unpleasant lining, to the scheme of the Liberal party. In my own constituency there are men employed on a road scheme financed, in part at least, by the Government. Those men go out at six o'clock in the morning, and if the weather be such that they cannot start work there they are waiting until seven o'clock, drenched to the skin, with no shelter, and with no sign of the weather improving. Then they go home, and because they have shown the intelligence and commonsense to go home when they were soaking, and there was no chance
of better weather, they have been dismissed by their employers, treated almost as if they were dogs and had no right to make an independent decision. I ask the Minister not to be satisfied with providing work of any kind and under any conditions, but to lay it down categorically that any employer, whether a local authority or a private contractor, given public money to carry out work, must be a model employer so far as wages and trade union conditions go.
That is very far short of seeking to solve the unemployment problem. It is not our job, as I have said, to pretend that we can do that. It is hon. Members opposite who are going to the country at the next election asking for support to carry on the present system, although we know from their own suggestions that they cannot cure unemployment. I admire the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Captain Eden). He did put forward a suggestion as to how to provide work, but when he went on to enlarge upon his scheme he reminded me rather of the bad type of housekeeper who cleans up by brushing all the dust underneath the carpet. His method of dealing with unemployment was to get people out of the country. I wonder whether he knows what is happening to those who are already out of the country. They have no unemployment scheme, no proper poor relief, they are starving and begging and going from place to place in a hopeless search for work. There is little wonder that those of us on this side who are working people, and who know that it is our kith and kin who will be affected by these emigration schemes, look at them very closely. If the hon. and gallant Member can suggest schemes and is willing to finance schemes, or go into the Division Lobby and vote for money to finance schemes, that will really guarantee that these workers will be as well treated as they are at home, that if they do not find work we will give them unemployment benefit abroad, then we might be prepared to consider such schemes or to allow the unemployed workers to consider them, but we are going to be no party whatever, whether the suggestion comes from the benches opposite or from our own Front Bench, to indiscriminate
schemes of shoving workers abroad no matter what the consequences may be.
I hope that the Government, if they can do nothing else, will at least remember the coming winter—[Interruption]—remember the coming winter—and that Members opposite are responsible for the children of unemployed workers receiving 2s. a week. There is not a single one of us who could go into the Dining Room of the House of Commons and get a single meal for 2s. a week, and yet 2s. has to feed and clothe the children of unemployed workers for a Whole week. The unemployed woman has to pay the same price for her food and the same money in rent as the unemployed man, and I do not see why she should get less benefit than the man. I would like to see the benefits both for the man and the woman brought up to at least £1 a week. If we cannot do that, at least I want to see the unemployed woman paid as much as the unemployed man. If we could do that, while we should not be curing unemployment, we should be giving hope and encouragement to unemployed workers, because they would feel that we were doing all we can with our limited power, and they would then be ready to give us that unlimited power which would enable us really to get rid of this great and utterly unnecessary army of unemployed workers, in a world which is overflowing with wealth of every kind.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I do not propose to follow the hon. Lady in her eloquent and vivacious speech, except to say that she ought to be reminded that we are discussing a Bill to provide the Government with money with which to carry out their duty as trustee of funds which are contributed by employers, the employed and the State. Her argument will no doubt be listened to with great attention by the Ministry of Labour, and no doubt the Government will consider whether they ought not to carry out many of the promises which, as she has reminded us, they made, and on which they climbed to power. One cannot help feeling a great deal of sympathy with the Minister in her task this afternoon. She has had to go back upon her own statements as to what was the right thing to do. She notoriously hates borrowing in order to make ends meet, yet we find her adopting a course which is against her principles.
One cannot help being sorry, also, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who came here yesterday and preened himself on his financial purity and on the deflationary method of increasing the Sinking Fund and to-day sees the mortifying spectacle of another Department increasing inflation by increasing the floating debt through borrowings to make ends meet under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
However, I do not wish to make debating points, but to respond to the invitation of the Minister of Labour by making a few constructive suggestions which in my opinion, and in the opinion of a great many of us on this side, may contribute to dealing, if not with the unemployment problem, at any rate with the unemployment figures, which are a different thing altogether. I would like to ask the Minister of Labour whether she is satisfied that that method is not aggravating the problem. The speech which was made by the right hon. Lady seemed to indicate that she had some doubts on that point, and she gave several instances which drew an artificial picture of unemployment in this country at the present time. She mentioned short time and the running of industry by sending people off work in order that the employing interest might obtain the benefit of the fund to which they contributed. I think that would be an abuse of the fund which was not intended when the system of national insurance was introduced. The right hon. Lady mentioned a case of rationalisation where a whole community was thrown out of work, and where the employés have become permanently on the Unemployment Fund. I think that shows that the present method is breaking down, and that the fund is causing a lack of fluidity in labour which is aggravating so much the unemployment problem in this country. I ask the Minister whether it is not obvious that a fund in which no party contributing to it really has any interest left can ever be a satisfactory method of running unemployment insurance.
We have been invited to make constructive suggestions, and I want to suggest that the Government have an unrivalled chance of abolishing the present system, which bas broken down, and replacing it with something better. We
talk about an insurance system. What kind of an insurance is that from which you exclude all the best risks. The hon. Member for North Lanarkshire (Miss Lee) used an argument with which I sympathise when she mentioned the case of women who were asked to take domestic service, and who refused to do so because they would be adopting an uninsurable occupation, and would lose their right to benefit. That is a matter which deserves the close attention of the Government, and we should endeavour to settle these matters without depriving those people of insurance benefit.

Mr. McSHANE: What kind of relief would you suggest?

Mr. O'CONNOR: Relief administered on a national scale. I think there ought to be a separate fund contributed to on an actuarial basis from which relief could be drawn very differently from the way in which it is drawn at the present moment. Let us consider for a moment how the system works. An employed man may contribute to the Fund for years, and he may never draw a penny from that Fund. That is unfair because that man is bearing an unfair share of the burden of national relief. The system bears unfairly on industry, because the industry which is actually working has to maintain the people who are unemployed, and industry is kept down with this millstone of debt around it. If you separate the two you would be able to give better benefits to the regularly employed man, and you would be able to reduce the contributions alike of employers and employed. You would also by that process bring into solvency a system the cost of which would be equally shared by the two parties, a state of things which does not exist to-day. That is one of the reasons why the Minister of Labour has had to come to this House and ask for more money to keep the ship afloat.
Subsidiary to that and separate from it ought to be the eleemosynary scheme to deal with people who have exhausted their right to benefit, and the extent to which benefit ought to be calculated on a proper actuarial scale. I would face that problem as well, and set up a definite system of national relief. We are so muddle-headed that now we are distributing this money as national relief, and calling it an insurance scheme.
It is no use saying that we are distributing the Insurance Fund when it is clear that it is not an insurance fund at all, and the method of distribution is not fair to any parties in industry. Those are some of the suggestions which we put forward for the attention of the Government. Unfortunately, we have no assurance whatsoever on that point. All that we know is that the Government are content to come down to the House to administer what has been described as a ramshackle scheme under which they ask permission to borrow million after million quite recklessly, and they cannot even see that the confusion of thought with which the whole system is being administered is one of the prime causes of their failure.
I wonder how many hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen opposite have ever looked at what is called the principal Act—that is the Act of 1920—and considered the elaborate safeguards that were inserted in that Act in order to secure the solvency of this Fund. That Act provided that the Minister could, by an order, arrange for an increased contribution, a decrease of benefit, or a shortening of the period during which relief was to be paid. We do not consider those matters to-day. The right hon. Lady said that no one would suggest that we should increase the contribution or decrease the benefit. If it is a real insurance that is what you have to do. Either you must increase the contribution or diminish the benefit or you must shorten the period, and that is all you can do if you wish to keep this Fund as an insurance system at all.
We have got beyond the stage at which we can consider this as an insurance fund, and the sooner we realise this fact the better it will be for the credit of this country, because there are hundreds of thousands of people who would never figure in the unemployment returns at all if they had some real interest in the fund which was introduced with the idea that all parties would keep it solvent and prevent unnecessary claims being made. That is one of the strongest advantages of a free insurance system. Under the present system the interest of the insured person is to let things slide, and instead of it being a real insurance fund people look upon it more as a pool into which employers of labour
can dip. The right hon. Lady says that the Government are unable to keep a pool of trained workers in excess of requirements into which employers can dip as occasion arises, whereas the whole interests of the country are that the number of workers required should be ascertained, and you should not have these pools in idleness keeping a floating population as a charge on the community. For these reasons I hope some constructive attempt will be made along these lines to overhaul this method of unemployment insurance. I feel satisfied that unless this is done, unless you separate the eleemosynary from the contributory system we shall not get any further, and this time next year the Government will be coming to the House again to borrow more money to inflate when the object of this Measure is to deflate, and you will be hanging a millstone round the neck of industry which will greatly hamper progress.

Mr. FRANK OWEN: The Minister of Labour gave us a very apologetic and detailed account of how the numbers on the register were made up. I think the right hon. Lady entirely failed to explain why the unemployment figures were at their present height and what was much more alarming she held out no hope that at any period during the coming winter they would be much less. The right hon. Lady drew a picture of an alternative between bread riots in the streets and coming to this House at intervals in order to ask for further subsidies of £10,000,000, £15,000,000 or £20,000,000 in order to keep the insurance fund solvent—an intolerable choice of evils. I think before we pass this Bill we are entitled to ask the Government if they have any plans or hopes to hold out that such a thing is not going to happen again in the next session of Parliament.
8.0 p.m.
The facts of the present industrial situation are too well known to need recalling. The unemployment figures are rising and the problem has been accumulating since the present Government came into office. In view of the fact that the present Government came into power upon the specific programme of curing unemployment I think we are entitled to ask them what plans they have before them for dealing with this problem during the Recess.
What has this active and vigorous Government done to relieve unemployment? They belong to a party which above all others have maintained that the first duty of a Government in the modern economic state is to direct a vigorous trading policy. Instead they mumble Free Trade and they pile, by measures of this kind, upon the last individualists the last burden of their increasing load. They told us that they were going to control national credit in the interests of the nation, but they have not even set up a board of investment in order to guide—since they are too timid to control—the flow of national savings. They told us that they were going to mobilise the idle man-power of this country, not for the base purposes of making profits, but in order to further social services, in order to build the houses that the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) was talking about just now, in order to provide transport, it may be, to carry the unemployed population to and from the Employment Exchanges throughout the country. Perhaps there is too much of Socialism in these proposals to suit a Government of Little Englander Whigs. They have set up, instead, Committees of inquiry. There has never been in the history of this House a Government with such an inquiring mind as the present Government.
In 1924 they knew the cause of all our industrial ills, and in 1929 they knew the cure, but in 1930 they are taking just one more piece of expert advice from just one more expert. They can at least claim that, if inquiry has become an insurable trade, they would have solved the problem of unemployment for the great army of inquirers. They have appointed a whole board of them on their latest committee of inquiry—"Uncle Tom Combley's" Economic Advisory Council, lunching at Downing Street whenever they can be fitted into the programme of the most popular restaurant for inquirers in the whole country. I suggest that they might ask that expert body of inquirers not to trouble about what one particular industry or another is suffering from, but what is the cause of the general malady of rising unemployment and declining trade, and, having got that information, to act upon it with some vigour. Be-
cause there comes a time in the existence of the most long-suffering patient when he requires something more than that best bedside manner of which the Prime Minister is the greatest exponent in the whole country.
On Friday last we had a debate in this House in which the Minister of Labour brought forward the Money Resolution for this Bill. The right hon. Lady was explanatory, as usual, and a little apologetic. Then we had an interesting competition between the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer), who tried to vie with one another in giving the gloomiest forecast that they could. The one said that there would be 2,500,000 people out of work, and the other capped that with a kind of dismal relish by saying that the figure would be 3,000,000. They were a couple of very bright and entertaining people to have at the sick bed of British industry. The Minister of Labour was a little more hopeful, but she did not give to the Committee on that occasion, any more than she has given to the House on this occasion, any reason whatever to share her optimism.
If she came down here and told us that she had been able to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to let us have £10,000,000 in order to finance a great reconstruction loan, instead of £10,000,000 in order to keep this Fund solvent, she might have found a great many people who were prepared to share her optimism. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, as we know, is resolutely opposed to such a loan, because no doubt he consoles himself with the fact that Mr. Gladstone would not have permitted it. Mr. Gladstone has been dead for some considerable time; and Mr. Gladstone, at all events, would not have looked with any pleasure upon an Unemployment Insurance Fund which was insolvent to the tune of £60,000,000. The trouble is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is trying to get a performance out of a curious animal which is a cross between rigid individualism and unintelligent Socialism—an animal with a head and ears of Ricardo and the hind legs of Karl Marx. It would be well enough suited to a Lord Mayor's Show, but is not of much use for putting between the shafts of the
State coach at this stage of the nation's business.
It is not much loss that we are not able on this occasion to discuss fiscal changes, because, whatever may be the merits or demerits of Tariff Reform in our trading system, it will at all events be agreed that nothing in that direction could make any possible change between now and the time when we reassemble, and it depends upon what we do in that interval whether or not, in the first days of the next Session, the Minister of Labour will come down here again and ask us to give her another £10,000,000 or £15,000,000 in order to prop up this Fund—the real Sinking Fund of the State.
There is a phrase going about in the newspapers and in the streets: "It will be all right in the autumn." Nobody knows what is going to be all right in the autumn. It is supposed to be trade. If enough people believed that it was going to be "all right in the autumn," it is very likely that that would be the case. The cause of the present bad trade is the number of people who seem to have a vested interest in saying that trade is very bad. When you have a millionaire, million-sale Press bellowing every day to its readers that this country is going to the dogs, that the country is going into bankruptcy, that it is going down into ruin, you cannot expect people to start new enterprises and new industries. Money is cheap, but nobody wants to use it, because nobody has any confidence. Money is lying idle, and, therefore, the whole of our trade is languishing.
It would be most unfair for us to blame the Government for all the admitted anxieties of the commercial community at this moment. It is perfectly true that they have done nothing to restore confidence, but it is perfectly true, also, that they have had to face the aggravated problem of general falling prices. I think that those who talk of bad trade and impending ruin do a very great disservice to the State. They perform a kind of treason to their own country. They are comparable, in my submission, with the meanest kind of agitator who seeks to undermine loyalty and courage in a hard-pressed garrison. In the War, we locked those fellows up, because, as a nation, we felt that they were undermining confidence. It is high time that we locked up some of the scandalmongers
who are undermining the nation's trading confidence at the moment. [Interruption.] During the War, when we had to put these defeatists under lock and key, we took vigorous steps in order to improve our advantage. We sought to inspire confidence, and we sought to deserve it. We said then, "It will be all right in the autumn," and we took immense pains, we went to immense sacrifices, in order to see that it was all right in the autumn.
I heard an hon. Member ask just now, "What about Lloyd George?" The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has had a very adventurous and controversial career, and, perhaps, the least controversial part of his career was his conduct of our affairs during the War. Even then there were plenty of people who had differing opinions about his conduct of the War, but at least he will never be denied this, that in the very blackest period of the War he never believed that we should not win, and he induced people in this country to believe that we should win. [Interruption.] He mobilised at the back of his Government all the good will and all the intelligent support that he was able to get in the country. There is no doubt that he deserves credit for having done that. It is still open to this Government to mobilise good will and intelligent support. There never was a Government since the War days that came in with such general good will on all sides, and there never has been a Government that has been treated with so much forbearance by the parties in opposition. [Interruption.] The charge against this Government, and it is a very heavy one, is exactly the same charge that lay against the late administration. It is not that they have created unemployment. That is due to a greater misfortune than the advent of a Socialist Government. The charge against them is that they have done so pitiably little to meet it, and that is a charge that will be sustained against them on every platform at the next election.
It is not too late, even now, for the Government to make a lively effort, and to crystalise that support which is still behind it. Reference has been made in this debate to the plans that have been advanced from time to time from these
Liberal benches for dealing with unemployment, and in the minds of all the critics there appears this one solitary thought—roads. They seem to think that the whole of our ideas are concentrated upon roads. Even roads, however—well-planned roads—are a very useful factor in reducing distributive costs, and anybody who knows anything whatever about the marketing problem in this country knows that the successful handling of it depends upon swift and cheap transport by road and rail. An intelligently planned road system is the very basis of a proper housing plan, and, in the schemes which have been advanced from time to time from these benches, housing plays at least as important a part as roads. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Viscount Lymington) the other day poured ridicule upon our ideas in regard to telephone development. Has he read the opinions of the most expert marketers in this country upon the vital necessity of telephone development if you are going to have a proper scientific and co-operative system of marketing, in order to collect and distribute a great volume of farm produce and stock in the right quantities and at the right time in the proper markets? There is nothing in the nature of digging holes and filling them up again in such a policy as this. I would commend this to the House, that, if we are going to meet and beat the foreigner in our own markets, we must at least avail ourselves of the same services which make him such a powerful competitor with us.
With regard to general plans of development, I am surprised that hon. Members above the Gangway are for ever opposing us. It is, surely, a fundamental part of their policy that the home market must be secured, and, if adequate telephone, electricity, road and house construction schemes are to be put before the nation, that will involve all our engineering, building, steel, cement and stone-quarrying trades, we shall be supplying the home manufacturer with a great many profitable bargains, and creating for him a basis upon which he can expand his work. We could do all these things with the money that we are voting away now. We could do something which, perhaps, would even more directly stimulate industry with the money that we are being asked to give, and shall have to give here. We could direct
and control the industry of agriculture, and bring about what might be a social revolution in the countryside, through the development of electricity. Our most formidable competitors ill the world have the advantage of cheap and abundant electrical power. They have it mostly through hydro-electrical development. It is our fault, because, in the past, when we had a monopoly of coal, we were too greedy, and wanted too big a price for it. There are only two great areas in this country in which hydro-electrical developments are possible, the one being the Clydeside area, and the other those counties which surround the Severn Valley. One might think that a Government so hard pressed as this Government is would have put in hand great schemes of hydro-electrical development, but the best that this Government can do is to appoint another committee of inquiry. The result has been that in this country we have had to depend upon coal for our supply of electricity, and there, again, the one first-class Measure which this vigorous and active Government has been able to pass through this House has been a Measure which has put the coal industry into a strait-jacket at the very lowest point of its production—a Measure which makes no provision whatever for the expanding electrical industry, nor for supplying that industry with the small coal which to-day is the least remunerative part of the coal industry and which, under an intelligent development, might be most profitable.
They had this problem in Russia, but they did not set about trying to fleece the home consumer and to get as much as they could within a restricted market. They set about developing their market by covering a vast area with electrical works, so that in 10 years' time we shall have to face from that quarter the most formidable competition. Even so, we are able to compete, as far as electrical power goes, on equal, and even favourable, terms with the two greatest electrically developed countries in the world. One is the United States and the other is Sweden. In the areas round about Niagara, of course, they get cheap and abundant power, because they have no heavy initial outlay in dam construction and no heavy overhead charges, and it has cost comparatively little to harness that mighty torrent; but if you take a
comparison of the six biggest electrical companies there and here, we are supplying even more cheaply than the Americans can over the whole area of American industry. That is because in a compact little island like our own we are able to cut down the cost of distribution. With Sweden, again, we are at an advantage because they have no concentrated industrial areas that can take a heavy load. We can do that to-day with our electrical industries in a very incomplete state. How much more profitably should we be able to run our industries if we got a vigorous lead from the Government? We should be able to meet and beat the foreigner on the very ground on which to-day it is claimed that he has an advantage over us. There is something more than that. Take farming. In something like 300 processes to-day you can employ electrical power in farming. The report of the Electricity Commissioners tells us that, if you can only increase your load in the rural areas, you can supply not only the farms, but the cottages of the farm labourers. You can get cheap heat and light and power, which means an immense saving in drudgery and a very real saving in the cost of living, into the homes of the poorest paid workers in the whole of the land.
You can do more than that. You can attract into your countryside those industries which are complementary and allied to the trade of farming, like fruit canning, milk powdering, brick making and industries for handling the surplus of potatoes, using them as industrial products by turning them into alcohol. You can do more than that. Intelligent and progressive electrical companies in the Evesham Valley and in Gloucestershire have attracted industries like wool making, pin making and silk stocking making. As ladies cut their hair and it grows shorter, pin-making may be a diminishing industry, but as the hair grows shorter, and their dresses also grow shorter, silk stockings are an expanding trade. They are there beginning to attract from the towns populations which should never have left the country, where rates and rents are low. You are definitely checking that drift to the towns and turning it back into the countryside, and providing a higher standard of life, and creating a ready market for farm
produce among the industrial population that is coming back.
We could do all that with the money we are going to vote away to-night to subsidise enforced idleness. You could finance a Development Loan of £200,000,000 with this money. If we did that, and if this Government would take in hand a vigorous regional planning and town planning scheme, they might be remembered as the architects of a new industrial England. [An HON. MEMBER: "How much would the landowners get out of that?"] There is a majority in the House for the proper taxation of land values and everyone but your Front Bench knows it. We have to remember, too, the vast expanding field of our Empire opening out in front of us, but we are not the rulers of those countries. We are the rulers of this country. We are the masters in this House and we ought to put our own house in order. We are going into a great Imperial Conference in a few weeks. Do not let us go into it and meet our brothers from richer countries overseas like the poor relations of the family, begging for sympathy and for credit. Do not let us go there like a bankrupt concern trying to attract capital and whatever we can to prop up a sinking business. If we put our own house in order we can go into it and offer them a share in the most flourishing business in the whole world.

Mr. SHEPHERD: I will not fall into the temptation to take up the arguments of the last speaker or to deal with the more fundamental principles that lie at the bottom of this very great problem. I propose to deal only with what may appear to be a very domestic problem but one which, nevertheless, affects many hundreds at the younger end of the unemployed who are now assembled in training centres. It is with the administration of them that I want to deal. I should like to say how very much I have all along welcomed the establishment and the development of these training centres, which in many cases has exceeded my utmost expectations, and I wish more than almost anything in conection with unemployment that they may go on in the same way as they have started, with the very high skill and enthusiasm both of the headquarters in Whitehall and of those who are administering the centres themselves.
I want to confine my remarks to some of the troubles which have arisen in connection with a centre which I will not name, because it would probably isolate it too much, and the problem may perhaps be exaggerated, but the Minister knows to what I am referring. Those who go to these centres are sent there compulsorily, and it is all the more up to us to see that their treatment is on the highest possible plane. It is almost impossible for them to get along with the amount of money that is left at their disposal. They are left with 5s. a week to supply them with everything they need other than board and lodging. I will not mention smokes, but clothing, boots and socks and everything they need has to be found out of 5s. a week. They are a very great distance from home, and in many cases these boys wish to continue what they were doing when at home, namely, to send 1s. or 2s. 6d. to the people they have left behind. It is almost imposible for them to do this and to keep straight on this very miserable allowance of 5s., and I want to ask the Minister whether some way cannot be found to increase the allowance.
I have been to one centre to-day, and I have also received a deputation from another centre. I will take the items as they appear in the minds of those who have been to see me. When one of these youths is sent away by the officials of the training centre to apply for a job, it is on the understanding that he must be back within 24 hours, and if he does not return within that time the training centre has finished with him. It is easily understandable that a youth may go to a job, it may be 10, 20 or 30 miles away, and may be found to be unsuitable, and that it may be impossible for him to get back to the training centre within the 24 hours. Yet if he does not get back within that time, they have no further use for him at the training centre, and he is left stranded. I am sure that this is a matter which has been overlooked by the Minister, and I ask her to look into it. If a youth is taken on at the place to which he has been sent, and it is found after an hour or two, or after half a day, or a quarter of a day, that he is unsuitable through no fault of his own—in many cases you cannot tell whether a youth is
suitable or not until you have given him a trial—and he returns to the training centre after the 24 hours have elapsed, they have no further use for him. He is left stranded, perhaps a long distance from home. I feel sure that this is a matter which has been overlooked. Again, if a youth is provided with a job, and after a week or two he is found unsuitable through no fault of his own—the job may have been finished—he is left in that particular place right away from his home with no means of getting back again. What is more, when he gets back home he is out of benefit, and he has to start the whole round again. I think that that is a matter which might very well be looked into.
A very urgent point at the centre which I visited to-day deals with the question of landladies. The centre has been very successful, indeed, in regard to the homes which have been found for the boys. I have never found that any boy has had a word to say against his landlady, and I would like to tender my thanks to the landladies who are so excellently looking after these boys. The amount which the landladies receive for the keep of these boys is gradually being reduced. I understand that in the particular case I have in mind they started with an allowance of 23s. It was lowered to 22s., then to 21s., and now it is rumoured, and I think with some amount of justification, that it is going to be lowered still further to 20s. I should like the House to realise that the landladies are of the same class as the boys to whom they are acting as hosts. They understand their difficulties, and it very often happens that although the money they receive is so small, they will say at the week-end, "Look here, sonny, we know how you are fixed. Here is a bob with which to get some cigarettes," or some little perquisite of that sort. I am certain that if the amount is further reduced, this sort of thing will disappear altogether, and it will make the position still harder for the boys to get along and to obtain their little amenities or even the bare necessities of life. It will not be possible for these landladies to give a square deal to these boys if the money is further reduced. I ask the right hon. Lady to recognise how splendidly they are playing their part, not by decreasing their
allowance, but by increasing the allowance in respect of these boys.
Another question of serious concern is the lack of medical attention. I speak here subject to correction, because one cannot always be certain that all that one hears is absolutely correct. I have received this information from one angle, but as far as I can ascertain I believe it is correct. It very often happens that accidents occur, particularly where there is very heavy work involved. Not long ago at one centre a youth fractured his leg—I cannot go into the details, as I am not sure about them—and I believe that the treatment received was not all that it ought to have been. I do not say that the boys do not receive attention, but the people who give the attention do not appear to be people adequately qualified to give the attention that ought to be given. Another grouse, and a very real one, concerns the question of the provision of food on Friday. I refer to the Roman Catholic boys who appear not to be catered for as they ought to be catered for on Fridays. It means, as they cannot have ordinary food, that they go very short of food, especially in consideration of the fact that they have often very heavy work to do. I ask that the question of Roman Catholics shall be properly considered.
What seems to be one of the most important grievances relates to the question of clothing. I know from people in my constituency the great struggle families have to fit out boys to go to these places. It means a big sacrifice on the part of those families to provide boys with a decent set of clothing, under-clothing, boots, and so on. I ask the Minister of remember that the great majority of boys possess only the clothes in which they stand, and it often happens that they have to go on working in the rain and during all sorts of inclement weather without any change of clothing when they reach home. Surely, out of all the money which we grant for this sort of thing, it ought to be possible to provide all boys at least with suitable overalls so that they can be protected from dirty work. I ask that overalls and boots shall be found, and that everyone who goes to these centres shall get a grant of clothing. It might only be for a temporary period. They might be called upon to give up the clothing when they leave;
but steps should be taken to ensure that when they go to a new job they shall be presentable.
I also want to ask the Minister to point out to the Employment Exchange managers that when they are selecting people they need not necessarily send those boys who come from homes where the accommodation, the feeding and so on are quite adequate. Surely, those who come from the worst homes should be the first ones to go to these centres. I am convinced that some of these boys would be very much better at home. I have in mind one boy who was using his leisure time between going to the Exchange and reporting by taking a correspondence course which would fit him to enter a higher calling. That boy was sent hundreds of miles from home. I ask the Minister to see that a little more care is taken in the way that people are selected to go to these places.
There are two more points to which I want to refer. There is the question of girls who are sent to canteens, and here, I know, I am laying up a great store of trouble for myself. I come from a constituency which is very near to Catterick Camp where canteens are run by the Navy, Army and Air Force Canteen Board. When I have mentioned this matter before, I have had all sorts of remarks hurled at me. I know well that the organisation behind these canteens is excellent. I can only wish that the conditions in all places where our girls have to work were up to the standard of these canteens. I have no criticism at all to make of them, but I want to plead that in those cases where the parents of the girls have an objection to their daughters going to serve in camps, the objection shall be recognised. I know that in very many cases it is a real, conscientious objection. It may be a mistaken one, and I believe that in most cases it is a mistaken one. I have several friends serving behind the bars in canteens at Catterick, and I wish to know no more decent people, but I ask, even if parents may be mistaken in their ideas as to the dangers to which the girls may be subjected, that those opinions may be respected.
It is obvious to everyone that in a canteen the girls and the assistants are
not leading the ordinary normal social life. Where there are thousands of men segregated from the ordinary safeguards of town or village, there are added dangers, but I believe that the girls are very well able to look after themselves. That has been my experience. There is, however, a very real fear behind the minds of some parents that they would prefer their girls not to go to the canteens. If they object, the girl is left with a difficult choice. If she goes to the canteen, very often the parent says: "You need not come back here." If she refuses to go to the canteen, her benefit goes. It is very unfair to make a girl face up to that choice. I recognise that the canteens are run with very great care and skill, and I think that the girls are shepherded far too much, but I would ask the Minister to recognise the very great fear that the parents may have at the back of their minds.

Captain WATERHOUSE: I am not going to pursue the subject which the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Shepherd) has raised with respect to his friends at Catterick Camp, but I would point out that what he has said is somewhat similar to what was said by the hon. Member for North Lanarkshire (Miss Lee). She in connection with domestic service and he in connection with girls who may be asked to serve in a camp, wanted certain classes of employment excluded from the ordinary range of jobs that ought to be taken by unemployed girls. The hon. Member for North Lanarkshire and the hon. Member for Darlington want to say to these girls: "It is better that you should be kept by the State rather than undertake an unpleasant job in domestic service or a possible risk at Catterick Camp."

Mr. SHEPHERD: I am not objecting to that service. I am only asking that where the parents or the girls have conscientious objections to camp canteens, that objection shall be respected.

Captain WATERHOUSE: I realise that, but they also ought to have conscientious objections of the most serious kind to taking the dole or insurance benefits if they can get work of any honourable sort When the Parliamentary Secretary introduced the Financial Resolution last Friday he traced the history of the Unemployment
Fund. He reminded the House that for its inception we had to go back to the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). Of course we have. We have to go back for the inception of all these schemes to the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. He was the father of 9d. for 4d. He was the man who, in the first place, set us as a nation on the downward slope, from which we are now trying to free ourselves. He might be called the Doges of doles. He has done more to demoralise industry in this country than any other single man, and it was not surprising to find that his own fund, the very year after its inception, was bankrupt and had become not an insurance scheme but a definite scheme of doles.
The Parliamentary Secretary made no mention of the intervening period. He jumped from the regime of the right hon. Gentleman to the present day. I would remind him of an incident that has very often been mentioned in this House, an incident which is not popular on the other side. I would remind him that by the year 1926 the insurance debit had dropped from £30,000,000 to £7,000,000, and that in one bound it went up to £22,500,000, an increase of over £15,000,000, due entirely to the action of hon. Members opposite in forcing upon this country an industrial upheaval which we could ill afford at any time, least of all at the time when it happened. The hon. Member went on to say that the present Government were faced with a very difficult problem and with a very heavy debt on the Fund when they took office. He said that they had to face £37,000,000 of a debt. That is true, but he did not say that when they took office the Fund was becoming solvent, that the income was then slightly greater than the expenditure; that during the month of June, 1929, there was a surplus of approximately £200,000. If the figure that I have quoted is not correct, the right hon. Lady will correct me. When she took over the regime she found the Fund in a bad condition but in an improving condition. To-day, we find it in an infinitely worse condition, and a condition which is weekly and daily growing worse.
The right hon. Lady says that she hopes the £60,000,000 will carry her on
to March. We all hope that it may. We hope that it may carry us through the whole of next year, but we do not believe that it will, and she does not believe that it will. We do not believe that it can possibly do so. It will be exhausted far earlier than that time. Is she going to come back and ask for more money? It is only 15 months since the right hon. Lady, standing at the Box, adopted an attitude very different from the attitude she has adopted to-day. To-day, she came to the Box in a very proper and meek frame of mind. Her whole attitude showed clearly to the House that she felt that she was undertaking a task that she did not like and that she ought not to undertake. That was not her attitude 15 months ago. On that occasion she said that she had tried to be a careful housekeeper but that like most careful housekeepers she had not had the money to do with as she would like. She went on to say that by careful budgeting and taking some risks she had just over £2,000,000 to play with. She had just over £2,000,000 to play with. She has played the game this year, a game so satisfactory to herself, possibly, that she now comes to the House and asks for a further £10,000,000. When we have a little flutter we play with our own money but, unfortunately for us, she is playing with the money of the taxpayers. In all quarters of the House we should like to hear from her something to prove that as the Minister of Labour she realises the responsibility that rests upon her in the administration of this tremendous Fund, and that she will do something tangible to get us out of the mess in which we are involved to-day.
There was a most interesting leading article in the "Times" yesterday, which I dare say was read by many hon. Members. That article pointed out that the payment of 30 contributions amounting in all to 17s. 6d. would entitle a married man to benefit for 18 months; that for the payment of 17s. 6d. he would receive £118 from the insurance fund if he had three children and that he could receive a further £43 from the transitional period scheme, which is really outside the present insurance fund. For a payment of 17s. 6d. he becomes entitled to the payment of £161. That is not the whole story. He may have been given a job on a Government subsidised scheme at
£2 a week, and if he works for 30 weeks he gets £60 in wages to add to the £161. For 30 weeks' work he will really earn £221, or £7 10s. per week; and that wage is to be got from other productive industries in this country. How is it possible for industry to recover and trade to carry on under such conditions?
There are five different ways by which a State subsidy, or dole, may be obtained. The first two ways we are discussing today; and the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Stanley) has estimated the cost at £100,000,000. His estimate has not been challenged and, therefore, may be taken as correct. Then there is the Public Assistance Committees, or the old board of guardians, who granted to able-bodied men in England and Scotland last year £5,887,000. Then between 1st June, 1929, and 31st March, 1930, £30,000,000 worth of schemes for the relief of unemployment were sanctioned, or about, £40,000,000 per year. These schemes would not have been commenced had it not been for the Government loan and therefore they may be fairly added to the bill which the country is paying to meet the drain of unemployment. Finally, and perhaps most vicious of all, we have the surplus which local authorities and some Government Departments pay over and above the economic wage. We know that men labouring for local authorities are getting 10s. and 12s. per week more than a tradesman working at his job. What that costs the country it is impossible to estimate, but the other four items alone cost about £150,000,000 a year, or just about as much as we spent as a nation altogether about 19 years ago. That fact cannot be too strongly stressed in this House and outside.
Can anyone wonder, with an expenditure of this sort, that we alone among the nations in Europe are going back; that we alone are not emerging from the trough into which we have been ducked. The Parliamentary Secretary said that it was a pity hon. Members did not read the "Labour Gazette" more carefully.

Mr. LAWSON: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member is correctly interpreting what I said. What I meant to convey was that the new form of figures in the "Labour Gazette" were not
sufficiently widely known outside, and I added perhaps not to hon. Members in the House.

Captain WATERHOUSE: I was not suggesting that the Parliamentary Secretary had been discourteous in any way, but I was saying that while we look at the figures at which he wants us to look we also turn to other pages which are not such satisfactory reading to him. Looking over my copy of the "Labour Gazette" I see that Germany during the month of May decreased the unemployed number by 150,000, France which has practically no unemployment at all had a decrease of 10 per cent., in Belgium there was no change, in Holland a decrease, Denmark a decrease of 2 per cent., Poland a decrease, Austria a decrease, Italy a decrease, and in Switzerland the position was satisfactory. I have taken them in the order in which they appear in the publication. In every country in Europe there has been a real mitigation of this trouble; but here we have an aggravation every week. In the United States there was virtually no change; the figures for Australia are not quoted, and in Canada there is a definite decrease in June of the numbers of unemployed. We have to face this problem, and face it clearly. We have come to the point where we have to say that doles as doles must cease—[Interruption.] The laughter on the benches opposite only shows how deep this disease has sunk into the marrow of hon. Members opposite and their satellites outside this House.
Doles as doles have to cease or industry will cease. It is all very well to expect industry to live on tremendous capital reserves. The hon. Member for North Lanarkshire said that if we had Socialism we could abolish poverty and unemployment. I quite believe that if we had Socialism in this country we could for a moment abolish poverty and unemployment, but it could only be done by using up the tremendous reserves which have been built up under the capitalist system. In that way only can it be done, and experience outside has shown that as soon as capitalistic resources are exhausted, poverty, unemployment and slavery take its place. I repeat that the dole as a dole has to go. Our insurance scheme must again become an insurance scheme; contributions must be the guide to benefits, no benefits
should be paid which have not been paid for. How did unemployed people carry on before the War? Hon. Members opposite have told us how on other occasions. They did it partly by savings, partly by credit, and partly by borrowing from their friends and relations. In my view we have to get back in some measure to that. The present position is this, that unemployed men and women have to borrow from the community as a whole, they have to borrow from industry, they have to sap industry.
We have to get back to an actuarial basis of insurance, to let others get help from their friends as far as possible and to have behind that the assistance of our new Poor Law, the Public Assistance Committees, to deal with cases of real need and real destitution. These cases must be dealt with on their individual merits. It is a farce to say that a dole, a gift, from the State must be so much per man, woman, and child. Every case ought to be dealt with by itself on its merits; and by people who are in the habit of dealing with such cases. That body, the inspectors of our Poor Law, are respected generally on all sides of the House. Unless and until we can get back to some such system, this evil will continue to crush out the very life-blood of our industry. We are spending as a nation £1,400,000,000 a year, and we are spending on this cause alone at least £150,000,000 a year. What could be done with even a portion of that money if it got back into industry? I hope that before the Minister comes to this House again she will have thought out one of the schemes which have been considered for so long in her time, both when she was out of office and in office, and that she will be able to lay something tangible on the Table of the House.

Sir HENRY BETTERTON: The object of this Bill is "to raise to £60,000,000 the limit on the amount of the advances by the Treasury to the Unemployment Fund which may be outstanding." In the very few remarks that I shall make I shall not go beyond the terms of the Bill, and I shall confine myself to its main purpose. Like many other hon. Members, I have taken part in and have attended many debates in the last four or five years on the subject of unemployment, and indeed we have all of us taken part in many debates where the
object has been to pass such a Bill as this. But, having heard practically the whole of this debate, I am bound to confess that it has been one of the most depressing and most distressing debates of the kind that I have ever heard. On the other hand, it has been one of the most significant. It has been discouraging because in the speech of the Minister there was, to begin with, no analysis at all of the main fundamental causes that have made this Bill necessary. There was a survey, interesting enough, giving statistics of this category or that, to which we all listened with attention, but when we looked to her for her analysis of the fundamental causes, which is all that matters, we listened in vain.
9.0 p.m.
It has been discouraging for this reason: I wonder what any unemployed man or woman reading a verbatim report of this debate, if there be such, would think. They would surely think this—that throughout there has not been a message of hope of any sort or kind to them in their trouble. I should be the last person to criticise the Minister of Labour because she has not propounded great schemes of amelioration which she hoped would go far to remedy the troubles from which we are suffering. I know too well how limited are the powers of the Ministry of Labour. But that is a responsibility which is a Government responsibility, and if the Government had any scheme or could give us any hope or prospect that our condition would be better, of course the opportunity would have been taken to-day, and the Minister of Labour would have been the medium for the expression of those hopes. The truth, of course, is that the Minister has no message to give and no hope to offer. What is it that has been particularly significant in the proceedings to-day? When we discussed the Financial Resolution on which this Bill is founded the Parliamentary Secretary, in terms of almost pathetic despair, made the following statement:
Reluctant as the Government are to increase the borrowing powers of the Fund, I think there will be general agreement that there is scarcely any other road out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1930; col. 1628, Vol. 241.]
I think the House should consider whither the road on which we are travelling is leading us. I do not propose to
take up time in discussing what has been discussed already, namely, what have been the effects of the Act of last year. Various estimates have been given as to the number added to the register in consequence of that Act. I do not know, nor is it really relevant to this Bill, but whatever doubts there may be as to the numbers that have been affected by reason of that Act, one thing is certain, and that is that the Act as passed was very different from the Act as it was presented.
We know that fundamental changes were made at the demand of hon. Gentlemen who sit below the Gangway on the Government side, on the fourth bench. They had the reward which is always the reward, here as elsewhere, of those who know their own mind and stick to it. But the important point is that the Minister of Labour, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the whole Government went down before the very first attack of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), and in spite of the protest of the learned Attorney-General—an Attorney-General after all cannot he always extemporising his life-long convictions—who protested in the most vigorous language one day and adopted precisely the opposite course the next. But that is not the point which I want to discuss. What I want to point out is that this debate has shown, if it has shown anything, that the road to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred, and along which we are travelling, is leading to two points. It is leading, first of all, to the hopeless bankruptcy of the Insurance Fund, and in my view it is in great danger of leading to the utter bankruptcy and destruction of the system of contributory unemployment insurance. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that we ought to recognise the boldness and the courage with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has attempted to meet the situation, to use his own words. But the result of his efforts is the measure of his failure.
Let me point out once again what has happened. Last November the Chancellor of the Exchequer granted out of State funds a sum of £8,500,000 to finance those who come under the transitional arrangements until April next. In addition, he increased the State con-
tribution by some £3,500,000 a year. This brings up the State contribution to £24,500,000 a year which, incidentally, is just twice what it was in 1929, but in spite of that tremendous effort on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer we have had two Measures since, raising the borrowing powers first from £40,000,000 to £50,000,000 and now to £60,000,000. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley) said the other day, this is probably the only thing that could have been done, but I put it to the House that it is a very curious course to be adopted by a right hon. Gentleman who has always boasted of his austere and rigid financial orthodoxy. This is not a loan; this is a raid, and such a proposal comes very curiously from the right hon. Gentleman who has for the last three or four years been reproaching and attacking and criticising my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping for financial raiding which he has always hitherto denounced as the most atrocious of financial crimes. What is the other point to which this road is leading us? I have already said that I think it is leading to the bankruptcy of the insurance system. On 10th July I asked the Minister of Labour:
the present estimate of her Department of the cost for the present year of the transitional provisions in the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1930.
The Minister's reply was:
The cost of the transitional provisions in the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1930, for the first quarter of the present financial year has been about £4,500,000, or at the rate of £18,000,000 in a full year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1930; col. 660, Vol. 241.]
The House will observe that the figure which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave but a few months ago of £8,000,000 has already been exceeded by £10,000,000, and this is the significant point. This fact would never have been divulged but for the question which I happened to ask. During the long debates on the Finance Bill one of the subjects under discussion was the question of what are termed hidden reserves in companies. We were told that this represented a not very honourable form of finance, because the Exchequer could not get out of those reserves what it ought to get. Here we have, in fact, a hidden deficit which would
never have been exposed, as I say, but for my question to the Minister, but which will have to be met when the time comes for presenting the next Budget. The seriousness of this position has only to be known to be realised.
What does this £18,000,000 mean? I ask the attention of the House to this matter. What is this £18,000,000 which finances the people who come under the provisional arrangement? There is no use burking it or blinking it. We have to face the fact that this is a provision of State relief under the guise of insurance and that relief is given at the same rate as the benefit paid to those entitled to insurance benefit by reason of their contributions, and a number of persons for whom that £18,000,000 will so provide is probably somewhere between 350,000 and 400,000. What cannot be too often emphasised or too clearly realised is that this is a compulsory scheme and everybody, whether they like it or not, belonging to practically every industry except agriculture, with an income under £250 a year, has to subscribe. When I was at the Ministry I had the most unmistakable indications that men and women, some of whom had never drawn any benefit at all, many of whom have drawn only a very small amount, are not satisfied to go on week in and week out, year in and year out, subscribing compulsorily to an insurance fund, when friends and neighbours living it may be in the same street, and belonging to the same trade are getting precisely the same benefits for nothing at all. That is the sort of problem which we have to face and with which we have to deal. I am not going to repeat what has already been so well said on this side, but I say that this question is one which has to be faced, and it is a matter for great disappointment that the Minister did not take the opportunity which this Bill gave her of dealing with what is fundamental in our system of unemployment insurance.

Mr. LAWSON: The tone of this debate has been somewhat different from the tone of the debate on the Money Resolution. The Minister's introduction and suggestions have received what I should describe as very sympathetic consideration, and, generally speaking, as far as the amount proposed by the Bill is concerned, there has been no adverse com-
ment of the kind which we had on Friday, except in two instances, with which I shall deal later. The speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rushcliffe (Sir H. Betterton) was delivered in a spirit worthy of the debate, but I think he was wrong on two points. He suggested that the amount paid by the Exchequer on behalf of those in receipt of the transitional benefit had been paid secretly, and that the House would not have known what was taking place had he not asked a question. While the hon. Gentleman was the first to draw attention to it by question in the House, I am sure he would not for a moment suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Minister of Labour would consider conducting the business of the House in such a way as might be inferred from his statement. He must know perfectly well that a Supplementary Estimate would have to be asked for in respect of this extra amount for the transitional period, and that the matter would be dealt with in the ordinary way of business.
There is another point that he raised, when he said that he had known men in work living next door to other people who were receiving unemployment benefit for nothing, and they themselves were making contributions, and that they were rather critical of that position, and of having to pay contributions themselves. I must say that, from my knowledge of working-class areas, I have never yet heard a working man grumbling about paying contributions to this Fund. The outstanding thing in my experience is this,that the very people who criticise the men and women who are receiving the unemployment benefit are, as a rule, the people who do not contribute towards the Fund themselves. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) made an interjection during the debate which, if we were to let it go without comment, might be misunderstood by Members of this House and the public outside. She said she knew of people herself who were receiving benefit and had refused jobs because the amounts they were receiving were round about as much as they would have got for working.

Viscountess ASTOR: Three shillings less.

Mr. LAWSON: The Noble Lady raises that matter here on the spur of the moment, but there is no evidence that she has ever brought it to the notice of the Ministry of Labour. If she considered it so serious a matter, I suggest that she might have done so, in order that not only the Ministry but herself also might know the facts. Had she done that she would possibly have discovered that the amounts offered were less than the actual rates of wages current in that particular industry, against which the Act has expressly made safeguards. There may be many such circumstances and possibilities, but I can tell the Noble Lady this, repeating what I said during the last debate on this subject, that I have known people, and know men to-day, who are actually working for the same amount in a mine, at hard work, as they would be getting if they were receiving unemployment benefit. It is almost pathetic to find how very grateful those men are to be working, and I suggest that criticisms of that description, which one could understand if they were made by people outside, are scarcely worthy of Members of this House, who are in a position to ascertain the facts of any such case.
The hon. and gallant Member for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse) made some very extraordinary statements. The interjection of the Noble Lady and the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for South Leicester were not at all worthy of the spirit of this debate. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to think was, as other people sometimes think, that it is possible to go back to the state of things that prevailed in pre-War times.

Viscountess ASTOR: I did not hear the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse), but from what I hear that he said, I entirely disagree with it, and I think it is not fair to put my question to the right hon. Lady on a line with his speech.

Mr. LAWSON: I do not want to be unfair to the Noble Lady. I rather think she made a mistake, and did not really mean that what she said should be taken in the spirit in which I know it will be taken outside this House.

Duchess of ATHOLL: If an hon. Member of this House, like the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor), hears of cases where work has been refused and unemployment benefit has continued to be drawn, might not such a Member hesitate to bring such cases forward to the attention of the Ministry? I have from time to time heard of similar cases myself, but I should have hesitated to make the local investigations that would have been necessary to inform myself of the names of the persons in order to bring them to the notice of the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. LAWSON: If any Member of this House has a doubt about any case, there is nothing to stop him or her from naming the case and asking the Minister to make an inquiry to find out the facts; and may I remind the Noble Lady and the House that, after all, these cases are decided by courts of referees, on which there is an employers' representative, a contributors representative, and an independent chairman? With regard to what the hon. and gallant Member for South Leicester said, I am sure he does not know, and the critics do not know, what the position was for the great mass of the people of this country before there was a national unemployment insurance scheme. I was one of those who were fortunate enough to find regularity of work when I was a young man, but I remember what unemployment was in my family when I was a boy, and I remember times when I had very great sympathy with the dog that went about looking for a bone, because we had been in the same position ourselves. It would be an ill day for this country if there had not been an unemployment insurance scheme.
I want to reciprocate the spirit of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot), who spoke early in the debate to-day. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour gave an analysis of the various types of people who have drawn benefit from this Fund. It was pointed out that it was never intended, for instance, that short time should be almost a permanent feature in connection with the Fund, and it is also true that the exigencies of a certain industry have taught that industry how to use the Fund as against other industries. My hon. Friend the Member for
Leigh (Mr. Tinker), in a very effective speech, if I may say so, drew attention to the fact that there was a class of men receiving benefit for whom again it was never intended that the Fund should be used—in regard to light rate compensation. As a matter of fact, I gravely doubt whether, if the Unemployment Insurance Fund had not been used in this way, it would have been possible for the light rate compensation position to have remained as it is at the present time.
One of the most regrettable things during this Parliament has been that the Bill to deal with light rate compensation was held up. The Government appreciate the spirit in which the suggestion of my right hon. Friend to have some co-operative consideration of this matter was met, because sooner or later, with a definite understanding as to the points of view of the parties, this matter has to be taken out of the area of controversy. There has been put from the other side of the House the suggestion that what the Government ought to have done was to have made some distinction in the Fund as regards insurance. I do not know why hon. Gentlemen should keep on repeating that, because there has been a distinction drawn as regards those receiving transitional benefit. That will be found to be helpful when the real position of the Fund comes to be considered.
I do not wish to take up much more of the time of the House because, as was stated here this afternoon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in response to the Leader of the Opposition, there are three or four more Orders to be disposed of. I should very much have liked to have dealt with many of the points raised, but may I make one further point? Previous to the coming in of this Government, local authorities complained that a great burden was placed upon them, which ought not to have been placed upon them, because of the fact that certain unemployed did not receive benefit. Local authorities used to call conferences attended by workers and employers, by Liberals and by Labour men. People in those areas from all parties made great attacks at those conferences upon the Government because the locality was compelled to bear the expense of men for whom they felt they had no responsibility in fact. You never
hear of those conferences to-day, and there is therefore a reasonable measure now of what the problem is. The Government have been working continuously on this matter. It was not a matter of mere statement when I said that the Minister herself made this proposition—made an offer from which there will be some practical results.
A point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Shepherd) about training centres. I should have liked to have dealt with this matter as a whole and with the points raised by the hon. Member for the combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone), which hinge upon the same point. I can assure my hon. Friend that his point will receive consideration and that any information which he has at his disposal will receive consideration. My hon. Friend and the House will understand that the Minister and the Government will not only lose no opportunity of seeing that the training centres are worked in the spirit in which they were formed but will also seek to do what they can to develop that side of the organisation. I am very sorry that I could not by any means deal with the points which have been raised but from time to time in this House there have been abundant opportunities of considering the position of unemployment. Hon. Members opposite have had their say to-night, and therefore, without saying anything further, I would ask the House to give this Measure a Second Reading.

Mr. BOOTHBY: After the speech delivered by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, we cannot possibly consider passing the Second Reading of this Measure for some considerable time. Of all the debates upon unemployment that I have ever heard take place in this House, the debate this afternoon has been, on the whole, the most constructive and helpful and full of the most fruitful suggestions. There is only one quarter from which no suggestion of any sort or kind has come, and that is from the Treasury Bench. It is the same old story—absolutely barren of any sort of policy or ideas. The Minister was asked a number of direct questions; the Parliamentary Secretary has not attempted to reply to any of them. No analysis of the causes of the present situation or of the reasons for unemploy-
ment was attempted by the Minister of Labour or by her colleague. Now, at the very end of a very interesting debate, the Parliamentary Secretary gets up and says that he cannot really attempt to answer the questions put to him. Why can he not? Either he means he is incapable of doing so or that he is so hamstrung by the policy which is being pursued by his superiors in the Cabinet that he simply dare not make a constructive suggestion or proposal of any sort or kind.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Warwick (Captain Eden) and other hon. Members on this side of the House asked one very important question of the Minister: whether she proposes to carry through any real, fundamental, radical change in the whole system of unemployment insurance in this country so as to put the fund upon an actuarially sound basis and treat those who cannot come into a proper insurance fund under a national scheme of relief. That is what has been advocated by hon. Members on this side of the House for years past and in the last Parliament. The Parliamentary Secretary has not attempted to make any reply to that suggestion or to say whether the Government have even considered reorganising the existing system or have tried to grapple with the problem of the manner in which the unemployed themselves are being handled in this country at the present time. It is the first problem one would have thought a Labour Government would have been anxious to tackle. I was very interested in the speech made by the hon. Member for North Lanarkshire (Miss Lee). The hon. Lady said that a pension of £1 a week would be very acceptable to a large number of people who are at the present moment engaged in industry. £1 a week would be acceptable to everybody; it would be acceptable to Members in this House, but I am perfectly certain that, in the manner in which the hon. Lady approached this question, she was profoundly mistaken. It is not by an extension of doles and pensions, but by a restoration of trade and industry in this country that the problem can alone be tackled.

Mr. MACLEAN: Tell us how to do it.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I have told you how to do it so often. We have been telling the Government how to do it from both sides of the House for the last 14 months, but they have not paid the slightest attention.

Mr. MACLEAN: Did you tell the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) how to do it?

Mr. BOOTHBY: The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) did a great deal more to deal with this problem than has been done by any effort made by the present Government. Proof of that can be found in the present figures of unemployment and in a comparison with the figures when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Lady, at the conclusion of her speech in favour of more doles and more pensions of all kinds in order to help the unemployment problem, made some further observations on the subject of over-production. I want to repeat what I have said in this House before, that no more nonsense is talked in this country than upon this matter of over-production. There is no over-production; there is a steadily increasing production throughout the world—and so there ought to be—for there is also a steadily increasing demand. The trouble, quite nakedly, is that there is not enough money available in the world to-day to relate consumption to production. That is one of the main causes of the trouble, and I would remind the hon. Member for North Lanarkshire of what the late lamented Mr. Wheatley used to say in the few months before he died. I remember on the last time I ever spoke to him, he said to me, "The only thing that worries me so far as the economic problem is concerned, is the question of how to bring consumption and the power of demand into some relation with the world's increasing productiveness." He was quite right; that is the fundamental problem of the present era.
Up to the time of the first Wall Street crash, the United States had come nearer to a solution of that problem than has ever been reached by any country. They had got into the right circle, the circle of high wages, high demand and high purchasing power as against the vicious circle of low wages and low purchasing power in this country. When we on this
side of the House, as we have often done, have urged that the supply of gold for monetary purposes has been and is now inadequate to meet the requirements of increasing world production, we are met by the present Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer with an adamant, resolute opposition. It can be proved, although I have no time to do it now, that the present Chancellor, by pursuing a policy of the most rigid deflation ever since he took office, has actually decreased the amount of money available during the last 14 months. That is beyond dispute. Therefore, instead of attempting to arrive at a solution of this problem, he has actually aggravated it.
What are the facts that are before the House to-night? For the second time, the Minister of Labour has come to us, and she is doing what she told us not many months ago was a very shocking thing to do; she is asking us to increase the borrowing powers of the Insurance Fund by £10,000,000 making £20,000,000 in all. Does any hon. Member really suppose that any of that money will be repaid? Of course it will not. It is £20,000,000 more raised by way of loan instead of by taxation, and what a farce it makes of all the pious remarks made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the course of the debates on the Finance Bill about repaying the Sinking Fund! It is easy to take a rigid orthodox view on the Finance Bill, when next day he sends the Minister of Labour to the House of Commons to ask for another £10,000,000 by way of loan, which comes from exactly the same quarter as the money he is attempting to repay.
The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Owen) made an admirable speech which was full of ideas from the first word to the last. If the Government would only accept half the ideas that he suggested, they would be kept busy for the next two or three years. But I have given up any hope that the Government will ever listen to any suggestion put forward from any quarter. The hon. Member for Hereford said that we were too pessimistic in this country, and he blamed the popular Press for spreading ideas that this country was "broke." He is unfair, on the whole, to the popular Press. Those hon. Members who read the "Daily Express" the first thing in
the morning, as I do, will have learned from the leading articles in that paper that this country is going on from strength to strength, that everything is quite all right; that we only want a little more courage and vision from the younger politicians; that we only want a few more Empire Crusaders and Lord Beaverbrook as Prime Minister, and then we shall be astride the world. I do not think that the hon. Member was right when he blamed the popular Press. I blame the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and indeed I do not think that this country can stand another six months of him. There has been no attempt on the part of the Government to grapple with the problem of unemployment or with the problem of how to handle or treat the unemployed.
The sole policy of the Government up to date has been to set up innumerable inquiries into every question and subject under the sun, and, while they are examining into these questions, they simply content themselves with steadily pouring out public money in the form of increased pensions and doles. That is all that they have been able to think of up to now—the only constructive proposal that they have been able to put before the country. It is not for want of suggestions from this side of the House or from their own Back Benches. The late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has given them the benefit of his advice on several occasions since he resigned—[Interruption]. I would rather the Government adopted his policy than their own policy, which is no policy at all but one of futility and sterility. I am sure that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) also would rather see the policy of the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster adopted because he is not a keen supporter of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would not have it at any price.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that we ought to form an independent party of our own. The Government have had suggestions poured in from every quarter; innumerable suggestions from both sides of the House particularly on the subject of agriculture; yet they have not attempted
to produce an agricultural policy. What did we hear during the last Election about import control boards, the reorganisation of marketing and guaranteed prices? They won an immense number of votes in agricultural constituencies on those promises, and we have not heard a word about agriculture, nor has a single Measure been introduced to promote land settlement or to secure adequate prices for the farmer. I am certain that the development of agriculture and an increase of land settlement would do more to solve the unemployment problem than perhaps any other single thing, and yet the Government do not come to the House with any suggestions on these subjects. We put forward proposals which have been endorsed by the hon. Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley) for the protection of the home market from the ravages of foreign manufactured goods, which are produced under conditions with which we can never hope to compete, but they have been ruthlessly turned down. Similarly, proposals have been made from both sides on the subject of Imperial development and the economic organisation of the Empire, and these also have been turned down by the Government. The hon. Member for Hereford referred to the policy of the Liberal party for raising a loan for the purposes of national development. Where we differ on these benches from the policy is that we think that there are quite enough main roads in this country.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: But not enough harbours.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I have been battling here to get a scheme through for the improvement of Peterhead Harbour; but I cannot get the money out of the present miserable crew who occupy the Treasury Bench. It is the same with electricity, housing, and a thousand other matters which could be put forward, and, although we say that we can never hope to solve the unemployment problem permanently by means of a loan policy, because the only permanent solution lies in a revival of trade, yet almost every hon. Member on these benches would rather see the money for Which the Government are asking, in order to subsidise idleness, spent on some constructive purpose and spent in a manner by which
we should ultimately get some return. It is this wholly unproductive expenditure, from which we can never expect to realise any tangible asset, that is doing more than anything else to demoralise not only the unemployed but all industries in this country.
May I now come to the actual question of the handling of the unemployed themselves? This is a subject which we should have expected a Labour Government to tackle practically at the very beginning, but after 14 months they continue to tinker at the obsolete and hopelessly out-of-date system which prevails and which, as the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) has pointed out, is behind all the systems of unemployment insurance known to the civilized world at the present time. Even in Geneva they are almost in despair about us. [Interruption.] yes, they are because they say that our present system of unemployment insurance is hopelessly out-of-date and that it is impossible to come to any international co-ordination or agreement so long as our present organisation continues. What single argument can be adduced in favour of the present system? It is fair to nobody. It penalises the man who is in full employment, it penalises the man who is unemployed. There is an incentive both to employers and employed to try to extract from the Unemployment Fund as much money as they can possibly get. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shame!"] We have heard from the Minister of Labour that there are many employers and many workers who devote themselves, sometimes in concert, to seeing how much they can get out of the fund. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] It may be a shame, but it is not their fault, it is the fault of the system, which ought to be reorganised.
We have the Government coming here to ask us to spend another £10,000,000 on bolstering up a system which is fundamentally rotten and unsound and requires to be radically changed. We ought to put insurance upon an actuarally sound basis. That is the first thing which needs to be done. Nobody from this side of the House suggests—and if he did so it would be speedily repudiated—that any man or woman should be allowed to starve or to suffer any great destitution,
because we are far past that, but we do say that it is unfair that an immense number of workers who are employed practically full time—sometimes when discussing the unemployed we forget the number of people who are employed, and in full employment—should have their wages docked week after week of money to be paid into an insolvent fund and then doled out again to people who have never had a day's employment for months past and are never likely to be employed again. We have to get down to the roots of the problem and to separate the various categories of the unemployed. We must have, on the one hand, an insurance scheme which is actuarially sound with adequate benefits, probably on a more generous scale than are paid now—I am prepared to advocate that. It must, however, be a scheme which is actuarially sound and one which it will be to the interests of both the employers and the workers to keep solvent. Having done that we must put those who have been long unemployed into an entirely separate category and treat them upon a national basis but in a quite different manner.
I would go so far as to say that there are many categories of these workers who can never expect to obtain permanent employment in their own industries again who might well be turned on, under a new system, to work upon schemes of national importance and national reconstruction. The younger generation might be sent to training centres; and the whole of this category could be put under a separate administrative machine which would look after them either by means of training centres, or of outdoor relief, or by means of emigration to the Dominions and Colonies, or by means of transfer from one industry to another. The workers who are more or less permanently unemployed ought not to be allowed to suck away and to dain the Unemployment Fund, which receives the regular contributions of a large number of workers who are hardly ever out of employment and whose wages are being docked simply to pay for those who are unemployed. We have not had a word about this from the Government.
We are reduced to this, that in one of the most interesting debates on unemployment which I have ever heard,
the Government have to come forward and say, after 14 months of office, that the only constructive suggestion they can make is that we should continue for an indefinite period to subsidise idleness to the tune of £100,000,000 a year under an administrative scheme which is admitted to be rotten by anyone who has made even a cursory study of it. They have no proposals to reform the scheme, nor any constructive suggestions to get to the root of the problem, which is to restore some measure of prosperity to the industries of this country. Everybody knows perfectly well, although some hon. Members opposite will not admit it, that one of the chief causes of the industrial depression which is creating so much unemployment is lack of confidence. Do the Government really think that this sort of Measure will increase the confidence either of the City of London or of foreign countries? Is it likely to increase confidence when it is found that the only proposal they can make is to ask for another £10,000,000 in order to subsidise idleness, adding to an expenditure from which everybody knows we can expect no return. It is the one thing that will continue the undermining process. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite may jeer at the mention of the Stock Exchange and the City, but when you have the City as stagnant as it is, when there is no confidence in this country, no investment going on in British industry, and the whole process of rationalisation and reorganisation held up, the numbers of the unemployed must be enormously increased.
I honestly believe that more confidence would have been engendered by a few constructive Socialist suggestions from the Government than by their policy of absolutely barren sterility and negation with nothing to propose except more doles shoveled out to the unemployed. We might have expected that the Government would have had a few semi-Socialist constructive proposals to offer, and I am certain that the hon. Member for Hereford was right when he said that almost any proposals the Government had made when they first came into office would have been received with great consideration by this House, because no Government ever had a better feeling shown towards it, the whole country
being determined that it should have a good chance. In 14 months the Government have not made a single constructive proposal of any kind. There they sit, a stagnant and impotent heap of humanity.

Mr. ALPASS: His master's voice!

Mr. BOOTHBY: No, he never would have thought of anything as good as that. They are absolutely hypnotised by the bleak stare of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, I assert, is more responsible than any other single individual for the misfortunes of this country; we cannot blame the Minister of Labour. We cannot blame those who are representing this wretched Government upon the Treasury Bench this evening, but we can blame those who are collectively responsible for the main policy of this country. They have had every opportunity. They have had constructive suggestions hurled at their heads, but they have refused to adopt any proposal, Socialistic or individualistic or of any other kind; and I say that so long as they continue in office there is no hope whatever for the future of this country, and the sooner they are flung out the better.

Mr. McGOVERN: I have a higher opinion of the House of Commons than I had before listening to the discussion this afternoon. It has been what we might call a rank and file debate, and those who have taken part in it have treated the subject we are discussing with a certain measure of concern. The speeches we have listened to in this House for the last few weeks have displayed a vanity on both sides of the House that would have delighted the hearts of our great grandfathers. I welcome the change that has come over this House to-day in connection with the problem of unemployment. I quite agree that every hon. Member of this House would like to see the unemployment figures reduced, and the workers placed in employment instead of drawing the dole.
I should have appreciated the Conservative proposals a great deal more if they had been suggested when the Conservative party were in office. I have heard the speeches of hon. Members opposite in this House and also over the wireless, and I have read them in the
newspapers for the last 20 years. I am able to go back in my recollection 20 years to the old struggle over the large and the small loaf, and we seem to be getting back to that same old struggle. We have an unemployed army reaching nearly 2,000,000, and the Minister of Labour comes here to-day to ask for a further grant of £10,000,000 in order to feed, clothe, and house them. I have listened to the insulting references made by hon. Members opposite as to the demoralisation of the working classes due to the fact that they are drawing the dole. I suggest that if doles are good for hon. Members opposite there is no reason why they should not be good for the working classes.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must address his remarks to me.

Mr. McGOVERN: I will endeavour to respect your wishes, Mr. Speaker. Many suggestions have been made concerning the working classes who are unemployed, and one thing that has been suggested from the other side of the House has been that we ought to initiate a large scheme for dumping the unemployed out of this country. I think that the people we ought to dump in other countries are the friends of hon. Members opposite, because we have far too many people in this country living on the earnings of the working classes. Hon. Members opposite want to unload the unemployed of this country and send them out to the Bush in Australia.

An HON. MEMBER: Why do not you go there?

Sir NEWTON MOORE: I have had 20 years in the Bush.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. McGOVERN: I have been out in the Bush in Australia and I have seen there the victims of your policy. [Interruption.] I resent the suggestion that the working classes of this country should leave their native shores. The working classes have a right to inherit what nature has given them in abundance, and which the friends of hon. Members opposite try to take from them. Unemployment has not been caused by any Government which has been in office. I have denied during the whole of my life that any politician or any Government has been responsible for increasing the figures of
unemployment, which is solely the result of the capitalist order of society. Unemployment will increase and will become more rife, and will rise to such an extent that in the end it will sweep away hon. Members opposite. I suggest to the House that we are dealing with a problem which is having serious effects upon millions of human beings, although it is treated with levity by overfed Members opposite.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Question before the House is Unemployment Insurance, and the hon. Member must confine his remarks to that subject.

Mr. McGOVERN: I am suggesting that the sum asked for to-night is too modest, and that the Minister of Labour might have asked for a much greater sum, because all the evidence goes to show that before very long the sum that is now asked for will be exhausted. The Minister of Labour stated that 170,000 people who were cut off from benefit under the rule of hon. Members opposite have been placed in benefit since the Labour Government came into office. My experience in local Government in Glasgow and in parochial work leads me to believe that a large number of men are still being cut off from benefit from time to time, and I believe that the figures are increasing at the present moment. That statement is supported by responsible people in the City of Glasgow.
The Minister of Labour says that her task in connection with unemployment is not an easy one. I quite agree that the task of any Minister who is in charge of the Ministry of Labour cannot be an easy one, but it is much easier for the right hon. Lady than it is for the victims who have to stand at the doors of our Unemployment Exchanges. I had four months' experience at one time of going to an Employment Exchange, and I never wish to have a similar experience during the rest of my life. It is all very well for hon. Members to say that the mere standing at an Employment Exchange and signing the register does not take away the manhood from a person, but I say quite definitely that morning after morning, as I went to that Exchange, I felt snore like throwing myself into the river, because I felt that my manhood was slipping away. [Interruption.] I want the right hon. Lady to realise the tragedy of a large section of the working class
who at the present moment are cut off from benefit. Take the case of single men and single women who are denied benefit and are refused relief by the Public Assistance Committee. We find there some of the greatest tragedies that anyone could imagine. I want to direct the right hon. Lady's attention to the fact that the people who are largely in charge of these departments are nothing other than a band of reactionaries, who are determined at every opportunity to cut people off from benefit.
I suggest to the right hon. Lady and the Government that not only are schemes required for finding work for the unemployed, but there is also the necessity for greater scales of relief, and I hope that the Government will face up to this problem before the next election, and will give to the working class greater scales of relief than they are giving at present. It is not my duty to suggest schemes for the employment of these people. Those who have created the victims and the wreckage should suggest the remedy. They cannot claim that they have not been in office and have not had the opportunity of finding employment. We have been waiting since 1918 for the old ship of State to come safely into harbour; we have been waiting for party after party to solve the unemployment problem; but there is no solution for the unemployment problem, and I want to urge the Government to deal more justly with these people in connection with the allowances that are made for children.
I appeal strongly to the Front Bench on this matter. Nobody in this House or outside would dare to assert that the scale of 2s. per week is sufficient for the child of any member of the working class. The tragedy of that is tremendous, and I appeal to the Government to do something in relation to it in the very near future. We were told the other day that it may be necessary to go to the country and to put again to the electorate the appeal of work or maintenance, and that we might require to put that into the window. If there is anything in the window when I go to make a purchase, I expect delivery of the things that are advertised; and, when the Government went to the country to secure the votes of the working classes, they ought to have delivered to the working classes the goods
which they advertised. [Interruption.] There could be no meaner or more contemptible action than to trade upon the poverty of the working class.
The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) talked of my difficulties in getting into the House of Commons. I am not satisfied that I made a very great bargain in getting into the House of Commons, but time will tell. I am compelled to judge people by their actions, and by their efforts to do something for the workers. I judge the prosperity of this country on the health of the children that I see about the country, and it cannot be claimed that the scales of relief given by the Government of this country are adequate to meet the needs of the time. I see children who are being practically placed in a state of starvation by the inadequate scales, and I should be less than a man if I failed to express my denunciation of and contempt for a policy that reduces the working class to that inadequate standard of life. It is all very well to sneer and smile, as the Minister of Mines is doing at the present moment. [interruption.] I want to say, in conclusion, that it is very easy to wait on £30, £40 or £50 per week, but it is not so easy for the children of the working class to wait on that inadequate scale. I charge the Front Bench of this Government at the present moment that they have not acted according to their responsibility, that they are not delivering to the working class the promises and pledges that they made, and I, for one, refuse to be an apologist for a Government that betrays the working class.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I do not intend to detain the House for very long, but I want to say a few words on a subject to which inference has already been made, namely, that of the entry into domestic service of women who are at present unemployed, and the contribution that can be made in that way towards the reduction of unemployment among women. The Minister will remember a speech which she made about 18 months ago—if I may say so, a very admirable speech—in which she said that the main reason why girls do not take up this kind of work is the fear of losing caste with their friends in other occupations.
She went on to say that that sort of spirit had existed at one time among girls working in shops, but that it had been fought down and overcome; and she said that we must get rid of that inferiority complex among domestic workers. I want to appeal to the right hon. Lady, and to ask her if she does not realise what a wonderful position she is in to give a lead to the unemployed women of this country in this matter.
She recognises, just as I do, the tremendous importance of the work, and what it means to the comfort and health of the families of this country. She realises, I know, what an admirable preparation it is for the making of a home on marriage; and she must realise, also, that it is permanent work, and, therefore, has a peculiar value in solving, or helping in some measure to solve, the unemployment problem. It is not, like the embroidery, lace or hairdressing trades, subject to fluctuations of fashion; it has no foreign competition to fear; it is permanent work that will always be needed in this country; it is work on which the comfort and health, and, therefore, the happiness and efficiency, of the nation are dependent in a tremendous measure. I would ask the right hon. Lady if she will not give a lead to the women of this country by pointing out to them what this work means, the dignity of it, the importance of it, and the contribution that, by taking it up, they can make towards reducing the number of the unemployed. I do not say that every woman, or nearly every woman, out of work could take up this work, but I believe several thousands could be absorbed into it if only a really great push could be made to bring them in.
I believe training centres are necessary for older women and for those who have been in other occupations. They must be given special training. They cannot be expected to enter into subordinate positions as young girls can. But the right hon. Lady knows that valuable training can be and is being given in thousands of homes to young girls who come in knowing nothing about it. She realises, I think, that conditions which were once in great need of improvement have made very great strides in the last few years, and where there is need of still greater improvement she will, I feel sure, meet
with assistance from many women employers in improving things, and she can count on many of them endeavouring to elicit that spirit of co-operation between employers and employed in domestic work which I know she wishes to see in operation. Will she not appeal to the women of the country to come forward and help, and remind them of the response they made to the call to help the men in the War? They rose to a woman to help the men in what they had to do in the War and I am certain, if she will try to put before them what I know she thinks about the value of this work, she will find many of them ready to help in this war against unemployment.

Miss LEE: I should like to know if the Noble Lady is advocating that these unemployed women should go to serve other women who cannot look after themselves or their young children, or is she advocating that one set of able-bodied women should go merely to wait on another set of able-bodied women?

Miss BONDFIELD: rose in her place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 101.

Division No. 456.]
AYES.
[10.18 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Dukes, C.
Johnston, Thomas


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Duncan, Charles
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Ede, James Chuter
Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Edge, Sir William
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Edmunds, J. E.
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)


Alpass, J. H.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kelly, W. T.


Ammon, Charles George
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Kennedy, Thomas


Arnott, John
Egan, W. H.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Aske, Sir Robert
Elmley, Viscount
Kinley, J.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Knight, Holford


Ayles, Walter
Foot, Isaac,
Lang, Gordon


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lathan, G.


Barnes, Alfred John
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Barr, James
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Law, A. (Rosendale)


Batey, Joseph
Gibbins, Joseph
Lawrence, Susan


Bellamy, Albert
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Gill, T. H.
Lawson, John James


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)
Gillett, George M.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Cattle)


Benson, G.
Glassey, A. E.
Leach, W.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Gossling, A. G.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Gould, F.
Lees, J.


Birkett, W. Norman
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Blindell, James
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lindley, Fred W.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Granville, E.
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Bowen, J. W.
Gray, Milner
Logan, David Gilbert


Broad, Frauds Alfred
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).
Longbottom, A. W.


Bromley, J.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Longden, F.


Brooke, W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Brothers, M.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lowth, Thomas


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Groves, Thomas E.
Lunn, William


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Burgess, F. G.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
McElwee, A.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
McEntee, V. L.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
McKinlay, A.


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Harris, Percy A.
MacLaren, Andrew


Cameron, A. G.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
McShane, John James


Cape, Thomas
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Haycock, A. W.
Mansfield, W.


Charleton, H. C.
Hayday, Arthur
March, S.


Chater, Daniel
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Marcus, M.


Church, Major A. G.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Marley, J.


Clarke, J. S.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Marshall, Fred


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Mathers, George


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Herriotts, J.
Matters, L. W.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)
Melville, Sir James


Compton, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Messer, Fred


Cove, William G.
Hoffman, P. C.
Middleton, G.


Daggar, George
Hopkin, Daniel
Millar, J. D.


Dalton, Hugh
Horrabin, J. F.
Mills, J. E.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Milner, Major J.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Day, Harry
Isaacs, George
Morley, Ralph


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Thurtle, Ernest


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Tillett, Ben


Mort, D. L.
Sanders, W. S.
Tinker, John Joseph


Moses, J. J. H.
Sandham, E.
Toole, Joseph


Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Sawyer, G. F.
Tout, W. J.


Muff, G.
Scurr, John
Townend, A. E.


Muggeridge, H. T.
Sexton, James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Murnin, Hugh
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Vaughan, D. J.


Naylor, T. E.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Viant, S. P.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sherwood, G. H.
Walkden, A. G.


Noel Baker, P. J.
Shield, George William
Walker, J.


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wallace, H. W.


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Shillaker, J. F.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Shinwell, E.
Watkins, F. C.


Palin, John Henry
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Watson, W. M. (Dunlermline)


Palmer, E. T.
Simmons, C. J.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Perry, S. F.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Wellock, Wilfred


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Sinkinson, George
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Sitch, Charles H.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Pole, Major D. G.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
West, F. R.


Potts, John S.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Westwood, Joseph


Price, M. P.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
White, H. G.


Pybus, Percy John
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Quibell, D. J. K.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Snell, Harry
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Rathbone, Eleanor
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Raynes, W. R.
Sorensen, R.
Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)


Richards, R.
Stamford, Thomas W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Strauss, G. R.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Ritson, J.
Sullivan, J.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Roberts, Rt. Hon F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Sutton, J. E.
Wise, E. F.


Romeril, H. G.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)



Rowson, Guy
Thomas, Rt. Hon, J. H. (Derby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.




Paling.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Albery, Irving James
Everard, W. Lindsay
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Astor, Viscountess
Ferguson, Sir John
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Atholl, Duchess of
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Atkinson, C.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Skelton, A. N.


Beaumont, M. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Gower, Sir Robert
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Smithers, Waldron


Bracken, B.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Buchan, John
Hurd, Percy A.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Butler, R. A.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Tinne, J. A.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Carver, Major W. H.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Train, J.


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Lymington, Viscount
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Chapman, Sir S.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Christie, J. A.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Colman, N. C. D.
Meller, R. J.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Womersley, W. J.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Muirhead, A. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Dixey, A. C.
O'Connor, T. J.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Pownall, Sir Assheton



Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Ramsbotham, H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Eden, Captain Anthony
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
George Penny.


Bill read a Second time.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Kennedy.]

Orders of the Day — LONDON NAVAL TREATY BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This short Bill is to give effect to certain provisions of a Treaty signed in London on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and to repeal Section 4 of the Treaties of Washington Act. Under the British system of law a Treaty, although it may be binding on and accepted by His Majesty's Government, cannot be enforced in the courts of law against private individuals unless legislation has been passed. Under the Treaty of Washington, certain agreements were entered into whereby this country agreed not to build or provide by private shipbuilding certain vessels of war. That has been slightly altered by bringing within the purview of that Agreement submarines of a displacement exceeding 2,000 tons and carrying guns of above 5.1 inches. An alteration has been made in regard to the first Schedule of the Washington Treaties Act with respect to aircraft carriers carrying guns of 6 inches. That has been altered to 6.1 inches.
It is in order to give effect to these provisions that we ask the House to give a Second Reading to the Bill. It should be pointed out that there is no question of bureaucratic enforcement. There has to be a licence given, and the whole thing is carefully examined by the Admiralty. Where it is in agreement with the Treaty, a licence is given for building to be carried out by private firms. The further point is the repeal of Section 4 of the Treaties of Washington Act, which provides for the trial and punishment of persons violating certain rules for the protection of neutrals and non-combatants at sea. It has been found by the nations that it is not possible to enforce that, and it is thought better to follow the usual practice rather than to endeavour to enforce something which cannot be enforced and which would likely embroil the Powers in serious trouble. Those are the main points in this Bill. I beg to move.

HON. MEMBERS: Agreed!

Commander SOUTHBY: This Bill is by no means an agreed Bill. Its purpose is to give effect to the Treaty which was signed in London; but why is it necessary to take it in such a hurry? With the Imperial Conference coming on in the near future, a Conference in which the Dominions which took part in the Naval Conference will be represented, why cannot the Government wait until after that Conference before bringing this Measure before the House of Commons? It is agreed that the Bill is consequent upon the London Naval Conference and the Treaty which eventuated from it, and I suggest that it would have been wiser and better, and more courteous to the Dominions, if the Bill had been delayed until after the Conference. May I remind the House that on the last occasion when a Bill of this kind was introduced, the Bill which followed on the Washington Treaty, the Treaty was signed on 16th February, 1922, and five months elapsed before the Second Reading of the Bill took place; that was on the 7th of July. In this case, the Treaty was signed on 22nd April, 1930, and only three months elapse—it is true it is about the same time in the Session—before this Bill is presented to the House of Commons.
It is a, Bill of great importance. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Admiralty has skated very lightly and very nimbly over it, but there is more in it than the hon. Member told the House in his brief introduction. We are asked to take this Bill at half-past ten in the evening. On the last occasion when a similar Measure was introduced hon. Members opposite were extremely vociferous in their objection to the time at which the Bill was taken. I have been at pains to look up the debate which took place on that Bill and I find that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone), who was present on the 7th of July, but who I do not see in his place this evening, complained most bitterly of the Bill being taken on a Friday. He said:
It is rather strange that a big Measure such as this, which is probably one of the most important Bills brought before this House since the Bill ratifying the Treaty of Versailles, is brought forward on a Friday morning with merely a quorum of Members present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1922; col. 737, Vol. 156.]
That seemed to be a complaint. Where is the hon. Member to-day to complain of this Bill being brought forward at this time in the evening by his own Government? Hon. Members opposite were also concerned with the method of introducing the Bill, when it was the duty of the Conservative party to introduce it. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) said that he was sorry he was not present on the Second Reading, but he complained most bitterly when the Bill was in Committee and on the Third Reading stage at the Bill being brought in and dealt with as it had been. I do not know whether we shall hear any protest from the hon. and gallant Member against this Bill being taken at this hour. Are we going to hear his voice lifted up in protest against the action of his sorely-pressed and much attacked front bench? On the last occasion the hon. and gallant Member said:
It is doing scant justice to the importance of the Bill"—
Mark the emphasis which the hon. And gallant Member laid on the importance of the Bill when it was a Bill of the Conservative party, but when it is a Bill brought in by a Socialist Government it is a matter of so little importance that it can be rushed through in a few minutes time. The Socialist Government can closure a debate on unemployment and get on with this Bill, because, after all, it is a mere airy trifle which can be disposed of in a very short time. The hon. and gallant Member on the last occasion said:
It is doing scant justice to the importance of the Bill, and the great success of the Conference which produced it. The Second Reading was taken last Friday, we are taking the Committee stage as the Second Order after a long and rather dreary debate on a very dreary Bill—a little unimportant, twopenny-half-penny Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1922; col. 1003, Vol. 156.]
It was the second Order, was the complaint of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull. But if he looks at his Order Paper to-day he will find that history is repeating itself; this Bill is the second Order to-day. Why then no complaint against his own Government? His complaint was so bitter and so vociferous and well worded when we were in office. Not only were the complaints confined
to the question of the Committee stage, but on the Third Reading once again those great twin brethren, the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull and the hon. and gallant Member for Northampton, were united, one on the question of the submarine aspect of the Bill, and the other on the air aspect. They complained bitterly that the Bill was rushed through the House with only a day's warning, and that no responsible Minister was present. Surely if those arguments applied when we were producing a Bill, they apply just as much now. This Bill is just as important as our Bill; in fact I may say—and here I am in agreement with the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull—this Bill is in some respects more important, because we have the question of submarines brought into this Bill in a way which was not in the previous Bill.
Let me point out one or two of the aspects of the Bill. The complaint of the hon. and gallant Member, in his extremely clever speech on the last occasion, was that the Government were steam-rolling the Bill through the House. He used that expression. What is the present Government doing to-day? Steam-rolling the Bill through. On the question of armaments the hon. and gallant Member said that we should prohibit the whole traffic in armaments. I shall listen with great interest and expectation to the speech which I hope we are going to have from the hon. and gallant Member, in which he is going to complain bitterly that there is no inclusion in this treaty of a provision for complete prohibition of the traffic in armaments. When the hon. and gallant Member was in opposition he was a very Daniel when he came to the House. He put his case most forcibly, and complained that our Government, which was so bad, he said, had not put in a provision which would prevent completely the traffic in armaments. He complained that the control was limited only to the building of war vessels. Is he going to say that to-day? Or has he been disciplined since Monday last? Was his attack last Monday visited upon his unfortunate head by his right hon. Friends on the Front Bench? Is he to-night to be a good boy, or is he going to complain bitterly again of the shortcomings, or the lack of any comings at all, on the part of his Front
Bench? It will be interesting to hear what he will say.
Let me take first of all the question of Clause 4 of the Bill. As to that the hon. Gentleman who has just dealt with the Bill said, "Oh, we have to take out Clause 4 because we are all agreed that it is unworkable." Why is it unworkable? Clause 4 was a very great advance in the last Bill. It was a Clause which met with universal approval. I have searched through the debates on a previous occasion, and there is not one single voice raised from the then Opposition against Clause 4, not one syllable of protest against it.

An HON. MEMBER: Why talk about it then?

Commander SOUTHBY: Because it might be interesting to the hon. Gentleman who interrupts, for once to get a little information. He will not get it from his own side of the House, but if he stops and listens he will always get useful information from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. Whether it will get into his head or not I do not venture to say. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Amery), who was in charge of the Bill on that occasion, made a great point of Clause 4, which he described as representing real progress. He said:
We have armed ourselves with more effective powers for punishing those who violate the rules of war than we had when the German war criminals were tried at Leipzig."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1922; col. 759, Vol. 156.]
I would remind hon. Members that under the old Manual of Military Law there was always a defence for a subordinate officer if he was able to show that the act with which he was charged was done by the order of a superior. Clause 4 as it was in the previous Measure took away that defence. I suggest that Clause 4 ought to have been left in this Bill. It was a very useful Clause and no case has yet been made out for its omission. I see the First Lord of the Admiralty is in his place taking notes and I hope we shall hear from him some adequate reason for the removal of Clause 4 and a little more detail about what led the Government to take this course.
Turning to the Schedule hon. Members will notice that the question of aircraft
carriers is dealt with and in that connection I wish to point out one curious feature. This Bill is to be read in conjunction with the previous Measure to which I have referred and, like its predecessor, it is consequent upon the signing of a Treaty which moves towards the object we all have in view, namely disarmament by agreement. It is laid down here not only that we may not build, for ourselves, aircraft carriers of more than a certain tonnage, but that we may not build them in this country as it were for sale. Although we may not build an aircraft carrier of 10,000 tons or less, however, we may build an aircraft carrier of over 10,000 tons and up to 27,000 tons. Why, in all common-sense is the prohibition not made complete? A South American Republic, say Brazil, may ask us to build them an aircraft carrier. We cannot build them one of 10,000 tons or less but we can build them anything they like from 10,000 tons to 27,000 tons. I would like an explanation of this point, particularly observing, as the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord knows so well, that up to date no naval constructor has been able to devise an aircraft carrier of less than 10,000 tons which will give adequate accommodation for the flying on and flying off of the machines which it carries. If this Bill is intended to prevent the manufacture and sale of this particular type of war machinery, I suggest that, logically, it ought to prevent not only the building of the small aircraft carrier—which from the point of view of the technical expert is not a paying proposition at all—but also the building of the larger aircraft carrier.
There is another question which arises in connection with this matter. If Brazil asks us to build them an aircraft carrier we may have great difficulty in doing so but if Brazil goes to Germany they can have an aircraft carrier built there the moment the contract is signed. Germany is not a party to this Treaty and can build any kind of warlike machinery—except the submarines which are covered by the Treaty of Versailles—for any other nation within the limits of the Treaty of Versailles.
Now I turn to the question of submarines. We are not allowed to build big submarines, but apparently we are allowed to build small submarines. If hon. Members look at Articles 6 and 7 they
will see clearly laid down the size of the submarines which we are to keep and also that, after the coming into force of this Treaty, we are not allowed to build for sale, as it really means. We are allowed to build anything we like in the way of a small submarine, as long as it is below a certain tonnage. Surely that is not what ought to be in the Treaty. Hon. Members will notice too, that in Article 7, on page 4, there is a special provision which allows the French to maintain and keep—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member cannot discuss the Treaty on this Bill.

Commander SOUTHBY: With great respect, I was discussing the Article which is printed in this Bill, on page 4, which distinctly reprints an Article from the Treaty. Am I not in order in discussing that?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see the object of the hon. and gallant Member in discussing it. He could not amend it even if he disliked it. If we cannot discuss the Treaty, we cannot amend it.

Commander SOUTHBY: I bow, of course, to your Ruling, but I wanted to point out the difference in the terms given to France under this Article and the terms given to this country as regards cruisers, and that might be a reason for throwing out this Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot discuss it on this Bill.

Captain CROOKSHANK: On a point of Order. If the hon. and gallant Member persuaded the House to reject this Bill, the Treaty would fall to the ground, would it not?

Mr. SPEAKER: No, it would not fall to the ground, but the Government would not be able to carry it out.

Commander SOUTHBY: I bow to your Ruling. In all the limitations in this Treaty with regard to what we may or may not build, there is no limitation placed upon any country not a party to the Treaty, and although we may not build for sale in our yards except under difficulty and under licence, other countries can go to Russia and Germany and, under the limitations of the Ver-
sailles Treaty, build what they want. This Treaty and the other Treaty which is really included are designed to prevent the building and manufacture in this country of certain munitions of war and warlike material, and I would remind the House that on a previous occasion this country got into very serious trouble and suffered very serious financial loss owing to the fact that it could be proved to the United States of America that the building in this country of the "Alabama" was contrary to our Treaty obligations. It is only fair to warn the House when we begin to legislate in a Treaty, putting obligations upon ourselves not to do certain things. Anybody who looks into the future might find that those obligations might involve us in very serious loss and trouble. I hope the First Lord of the Admiralty will give us a rather fuller discussion of this Treaty when he comes to reply.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: With one part of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) I was in agreement, and I will not shirk it. I think this debate to-night is rather in the nature of an anti-climax. After all that we have heard of the great efforts of the Prime Minister, which we all appreciate and to which I have already paid tribute, we have this Treaty brought before Parliament late at night, and we have a speech by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, of which my hon. Friends on this bench, one of whom is very interested in this Treaty, and myself could hardly hear a word. I do not want to be unfair to my hon. Friend, but he skated over the Treaty, as the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom said. When the Washington Treaty of 1922 was introduced, we had a fine full-dress debate, in which the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition took part, and although it took place late at night, it was a dignified occasion.
This, after all, affects the power of this House over treaty-making. I know the difficulties with which the Chief Patronage Secretary has to contend in arranging the business so late in the Session, but it is a pity that the Bill should be brought on at so late an hour when we shall naturally be reluctant to spend much time on its discussion. I want to deal only with Clause 2, which abrogates
that part of the Treaties of Washington Act, 1922, which provides for the trial and punishment of persons violating the rules of war. I understand that the reason why we have made this retrograde step is that the Washington Treaty was left unratified by certain of the high contracting parties. It is a rather unfortunate precedent if, because a certain nation does not ratify a treaty, that treaty is to be abandoned. Another Washington Treaty, that of 1919, limiting the hours of labour, has not been ratified by many of the high contracting parties. We have not even ratified it ourselves, but that is no reason why we should abandon it.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is committing the same fault as his predecessor. He is now discussing the merits of a treaty with which the Bill has nothing to do.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am very sorry. I was using it as an illustration. I shall return immediately to Clause 2, which abrogates the trial and punishment of persons violating certain rules. I very much regret that it has been necessary in the circumstances to go back on the Washington Treaty. I would refer the House to the actual terms of that treaty which we are now asked to abrogate. That Conference in Washington met when the world was still suffering from great horror and indignation at the barbarities committed at sea in the War which had not long terminated. There were then drawn up in that treaty certain rules for the conduct of war at sea. The actual Clause reads as follows:
Trial and punishment for violation of rules as to warfare against commerce.
Any person in the service of any Power who violates any of the articles contained in Article I set forth in the Second Schedule to this Act, whether or not such person is under a governmental superior, shall be deemed to have violated the laws of war, and shall be liable to trial and punishment as if for an act of piracy, and if found within His Majesty's Dominions, may be brought to trial before any civil or military tribunal who would have had jurisdiction to deal with the case if the act had been an act of piracy."
That is a great international instrument which all other Powers were asked to ratify, and which declared the indignation of the civilised world at the outrages committed on peaceable and un-
armed seamen on board merchant ships in the late War. Was the world wrong to take that view? The overwhelming opinion of the world was behind that Clause in the Washington Treaty which we are now asked to abrogate. The world was right in its opinion at that time and it is a great pity that we, the biggest maritime power in the world, with our seamen sailing all the seas should, in some future war, as neutrals be subject to the same outrages and murders on the high seas that were committed by the German forces in the late War. It was a warning that those sinking unarmed ships at sea and violating the ancient laws of humanity would be regarded as pirates, and tried accordingly.
We are going back on that, and it is a retrograde step. We have in the present Treaty put a substitute, but there is no sanction, no punishment. We have drawn up rules for the polite conduct of war. There can never be any rules for the polite conduct of war, because war can never be politely conducted. We can have a certain code which has been observed in the past, and we can enforce it. But as a hon. and gallant Member said a couple of days ago, if you attempt to prevent a submarine being used in a certain way, some nation, if she has her back to the wall, may be tempted to break those rules for the sake of gain. That is an argument that is used against having any rules. Very recent history shows that there is value in having a certain code, and I am sorry to say that in the Treaty that I will not discuss this has been departed from. The Germans broke that code, and that is why Article 4 of the Washington Treaty, which we are now asked to abrogate, was drawn up. Because they broke that code, they brought in against them the most powerful neutral which undoubtedly turned the scales in the War. It is not untrue to say, as has been said, that the man who sank the "Lusitania" won the War for the enemies of Germany. That is a classic example of how the old code, when broken, reacted against those who broke it, and therefore there is a case for having certain rules, as long as they are the sanctified rules that have been recognised and adopted by seamen for many centuries.
In this substituted Clause we go back on the well recognised practice of some
centuries, and apparently it is because a certain Power refused to ratify one of the most important parts of the Treaty. France objected because she was building a great submarine fleet. This shows us that in the next Conference, when the next Treaty is brought up, the French invitation, which was made in the official French Note, must be accepted. That is, that it is no use merely discussing categories, tonnages, gun calibres and the displacement of ships; we must also discuss the use of navies. As the French said, and as we were told by the First Lord, we had to agree to it—he would, of course, agree with me that this is the retrograde step—because other Powers would not otherwise have signed the part of the Treaty that they have signed. Let me quote the words of the French Memorandum which appeared in the "Times" on 27th December last. It was issued to the world as the official Memorandum of the French Government on the dawn of the Conference:
Just as a general technical agreement upon armaments implies previous political agreement, so does a complete naval agreement presuppose an understanding on the question of the freedom of the seas"—
this is where the particular Treaty we are discussing now is particularly referred to—
defining the rights of belligerents and the rights of neutrals and providing for the prospective co-operation of other fleets against that of an aggressor country.
11.0 p.m.
In other words, instead of relying on your own fleet, on your own minimum of 50 cruisers, you rely on the co-operative efforts of other Powers. If we could have a real code of sea law drawn up to suit modern conditions, which this Treaty does not do, and, if that is recognised as an international instrument, we could really rely on the benevolent neutrality, and possibly the intervention, of other Powers if these rules are transgressed in some future war. I am sorry to say that that was not tackled very courageously by the delegates. After I had returned to this country and the Conference was well under way I asked several questions of the Foreign Secretary, and various replies were given, but finally it emerged that there was an agreement between the British and American Governments that
this particular question should not be discussed. I think that is the real cause why greater success in the Treaty was not achieved. I am not criticising when I say that greater success was not obtained, because it has been deplored by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He did his best, as we all know, but he has admitted that he would have liked the Treaty to go a little further. Before the General Election my right hon. Friend had a very different idea. He wrote a foreword to an official pamphlet issued by the Labour party in which he declared that the great question of Anglo-American relations would never be satisfactorily settled until the freedom of the seas was settled between us. I do not want to delay the House at this time of night. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members opposite will admit that this is a matter of some importance. They cheered the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) when he protested against this being taken at a late hour, and it is not for them to shout me down now. I hope that in a comparatively short time, in another year or two, there will be another conference, and in the most friendly way I do beg my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to begin the education of public opinion on this subject.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member must confine himself to this Bill.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will do so. It will be admitted by my right hon. Friend that it was with great reluctance that he agreed to Clause 2 of the Bill. Why do we now have to pass Clause 2? I am afraid it is because this admittedly thorny question was left unsettled. This Clause removes from the original Treaty of 1922 a safeguard to our seamen in some future war, whether we are engaged in it or are neutrals, for neutrals were damaged and sunk and men were murdered in the late War. This is a question that touches very deep and old feelings among our people, but conditions have changed, and I beg the Prime Minister, who unfortunately was not here on Monday, to read the speech of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) in that debate. He admitted at the beginning of his speech that we would no longer in the future, because we agreed to parity, be able to exercise blockade. That being
the case, we need not be afraid of the big Labour party saying we are throwing away a weapon.

Mr. SPEAKER: Captain Balfour.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker, I had nearly finished my speech. This is an important question which will have to be discussed on another occasion.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: There is one point upon which I should like to have some further light and that is the question of aircraft carriers. In the speech of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty just now he said that on the question of the limitation of aircraft carriers the present position could be nullified by the granting of a licence. I would like to know on what terms the granting of such a licence would be made conditional. I would like to know if other countries are building aircraft carriers of under 10,000 tons, and I should like to ask whether the Admiralty will look sympathetically on an application by naval shipyards to do likewise. I have looked at the Treaties of Washington Act of 1922 which deals with this question, and it says:
Provided that a licence for any such purpose shall not be refused by the Admiralty unless it appears to the Admiralty necessary to do so for the purpose of securing the observance of the obligations imposed by the first-mentioned Treaty, and where a licence is granted subject to conditions, the conditions shall be such only as may appear necessary to the Admiralty for the purpose aforesaid.
I am at a loss to know on what conditions the Admiralty will grant the licence in question. What is the objection to the limitation to 10,000 tons and under without a minimum limit to the building of aircraft? This is going to be a very great potential danger to the future of flying and the safety of aviation.

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot go into that question now.

Captain BALFOUR: I would like to refer to Article 3 of this Treaty, which says:
The fitting of a landing-on or flying-off platform or deck on a capital ship, cruiser or destroyer, provided such vessel was not designed or adapted exclusively as an aircraft carrier, shall not cause any vessel so fitted to be charged against or classified in the category of aircraft carriers.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is one of the Articles of the Treaty and that is not under discussion now.

Captain BALFOUR: It is in the Schedule and I thought that I should be in order in referring to it. If I am not in order in referring to it I hope that at some future time we shall have some indication as to the reasons for the stipulation in this limitation because it is not right to encourage large aircraft carriers and consequently small platform flying from decks of other ships. The whole development of aviation should be to have smaller and smaller hangar ships. There is an old saying, "Where I dines I sleeps," and it is equally applicable to other pilots in the words, "Where I garages I flies."

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: I only want to ask one question before the First Lord replies. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us a more substantial answer to the points which have been raised on Clause 2, but the point on which I desire to ask a question has not been raised this evening. The Prime Minister will remember that I did suggest to him the other day that it was a little premature to take this Bill at the moment, and I think that there would have been a great deal to be said for leaving the Bill until after the Imperial Conference. I want to ask the Government whether they have an assurance from the Dominions, including the Irish Free State, that they will give effect to such legislation as may be necessary under Clause 1 of this Bill. Of course, the First Lord of the Admiralty will remember that, under the original Act of 1922, the Dominions are specially excluded, including the Irish Free State when constituted, and, of course, it is essential, if we tie our hands—we are not going to oppose it; I understand that it is part of what has been done at the Conference—if we tie our hands with regard to shipbuilding here, it is essential that equal legislation should be applied in all the Dominions, including the Irish Free State. That is a point on which I hope I shall get a satisfactory reply. If we do not get such a reply, we shall press the matter to a Division.

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): If I may reply first to the point which has just
been raised by the Leader of the Opposition, may I say that we have indications from all the Dominions which were represented at the Conference that they intend fully to ratify the London Naval Treaty, and we have no doubt in our minds that each one of the Dominions which were represented, and which indicated their intention to ratify the Treaty, will, within the terms of their own Constitutions, pass what legislation is necessary in order that they may carry out their obligations under their decision to ratify. If there is any doubt about that, it can certainly be settled at the Imperial Conference, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, but there is no reason at all why, for that purpose, we should delay passing the legislation which we are submitting to the House to-night.
The Prime Minister said the other day, in reply to a question from the right hon. Gentleman, that he would look carefully into the question when to take this Bill, but I think that the Leader of the Opposition will agree that it is always important, in the interests of the State, that, when this country is ratifying a Treaty which will in any way limit the action of its nationals, that Treaty should be implemented by a Statute at once, and that that Statute should be discussed by the House of Commons. That is the course of action that is being taken now.
It would, I think, be out of order for me to reply to some of the questions which have been raised. I have, if I may say so, a great deal of sympathy with hon. Members who have had to try to keep in order in speaking on this Bill; it is exceedingly difficult to keep in order within the narrow limits of the Bill; but I may say, generally, that the Schedule reprints very faithfully the restrictions laid down in certain categories of ships in the Treaty; and as we, as a Power that is a party to the Treaty, with the four other Powers—because they are all parties—undertook solemnly that we will not build for ourselves ships of this class, it is necessary for us to declare by law that our nationals Shall not build for other Powers ships which we have undertaken by treaty not to build for use by ourselves; and, really, all the questions that have been raised about different categories of ships have to be answered,
within the terms of order under this Bill, in that one way.
If, however, I am not ruled out of order in answering one specific question, I should like to reassure the hon. Gentleman who referred to the limitations which were placed upon the building in this country of aircraft carriers, that, if he will study carefully the provisions of the Treaty upon which this Bill is based, he will find that what was really behind the minds of the delegates of the various Powers at the Conference, in dealing with aircraft carriers, was that you should not have growing up a very large number of ships which are fitted or do-signed as aircraft carriers, carrying a gun over the calibre of 6.1 inches, and which could be used, if necessary, as cruisers. It was a very anxious point in the minds of all the delegates to the Conference that, having got agreement at Washington in 1922—

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is getting on to dangerous ground, and if I allowed him to proceed I should find it difficult to keep others in order if they wished to reply to him.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I was very anxious to satisfy the desire of hon. Members opposite for information. I will leave the point, but if anyone has any difficulty in the matter I shall be only too happy to give him information at the Admiralty. With regard to the other matter that has been raised, Section 2, we did everything we possibly could to achieve the major purpose with regard to submarines, and that was to abolish their use in war altogether. We failed in that purpose. We were faced then with what should be the basis of agreement, if we could get it, with regard to regulation. The agreement that was arrived at is disappointing, as compared with what it was hoped had been gained in the 1922 Treaty. But that Treaty is of no effect and we should be keeping on the Statute Book a penalty to be applied in respect to offences against the Treaty which were ineffective because they were not ratified. That is an absurd position for us to maintain. But it does not rule out the possibility of this or, I hope, any future Government continuing to deal with the matter by negotiation.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman speaks of sub-
marines. He could not abolish submarines and this was the next best thing. The rules we are advocating do not only apply to submarines. There were illegal sinkings by surface vessels as well. The whole code of international law, quite apart from submarines, wants stating again

Mr. ALEXANDER: We are quite willing to do all we possibly can to get the principles re-stated, but it is essential that we should get at the Conference, as the result of our efforts, the major point of agreement stated effectively by agreement, by ratification, by legislation, in each of the countries. The Prime Minister has stated on more than one occasion that he regretted we were not more successful but we have certainly made an actual step forward. We shall not relax our efforts but shall carry it still further.

Commander SOUTHBY: Have the other signatories to the Washington Treaty cancelled, as we are being asked to cancel, their equivalent articles to Article IV of the original Act, and did the suggestion that it should be cancelled come from us in the first place or from them?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I stated that certain signatories never ratified at all and therefore have no legislation of the kind. I have no doubt the other Powers will take all necessary legislative action to secure the purpose.

Commander SOUTHBY: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I want to know whether those who were signatories have definitely stated that they are going to cancel.

Mr. ALEXANDER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must understand that all the Powers who are signatories did not deposit ratification—[Interruption]—if one or two did. But we have not the information at present of what they are actually going to do except that it is implicit in the Treaty itself, the agreement part of it, that they will take all necessary legislative action to implement this Treaty.

Commander SOUTHBY: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands me.
Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Alexander.]

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 11th July.]

[Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Appointment of Public Works Loan Commissioners for five years.)

Amendment proposed [11th July]: In page 1, to leave out line 14.—[Mr. Wallhead.]

Question again proposed, "That line 14 stand part of the Clause."

Mr. WALLHEAD: I should like to add a few words to the statement which I made when the matter was before the Committee on the previous occasion. Since that time this matter has occasioned some comment in various parts of the House and in certain newspapers. There is, apparently, in the minds of some of the writers in the papers some misapprehension. I am charged, particularly by one of the South Wales papers, because I made an attack upon this gentleman for speaking his mind very freely with regard to certain individuals. I want to say very clearly that if this gentleman had in 1926, in the course of the dispute, directed his statement or his charges against certain individuals I should have said nothing at all about the matter. If he had said that certain members, say, of the Miners' Federation, ought to have been punished or that certain action should have been taken against them, that would have been a matter of opinion, but the statement which he made was not against certain individuals at all, but against the miners as a class. The statement was not only made against the men who were actually engaged in the dispute at that time, but ipso facto it included their wives and children as well. The statement was made on the 23rd June, 1926, at the Annual Meeting of the City of London Conservative and Unionist Association. I am going to quote the statement as given in the Press. Lord Hunsdon said:
The Prime Minister has told us not to cherish malice and vindictiveness. They are
not British characteristics. But while the miners are our enemies we should not feed them. We did not feed the Germans, and I cannot fur the life of me see why we should feed the miners.
I regard that as a very grave statement. This Gentleman says that he has forgotten that he ever made the statement. He has forgotten where he made it. I am afraid that that statement makes the offence even greater. It seems as if it is the habitual mind of this Gentleman that he does not know where he makes these statements, and that he takes no note of where he happens to utter sentiments of that description. Had it been a mere charge against a handful of individuals concerned in running the dispute on one side or the other I would not have taken any notice of it, but his statement indicates an attitude of mind, and I am not prepared to let it go unchallenged. Therefore, I stand by my Amendment.
The argument has been used that the line which I suggest—this so-called vindicative line—will make it difficult to get gentlemen to serve upon Committees of a public character. I do not believe, and I do not think there is any reasonable-minded man in the House who believes, that anything that I have said is directed against the average man who serves on public committees. This is a specific case, and I am making a specific case of it. I want to exonerate our front bench in regard to this matter. Whatever may be said of the back benchers, I think it will be recognised that our front bench are perfect gentlemen in this matter. Whatever ruffianly conduct may be attributed to the back benchers, our front bench can be exonerated. They will act in a perfectly gentlemanly and a perfectly proper manner [Interruption]. When in 1924 our front bench appointed two eminent gentlemen, Mr. Bertrand Russell and Mr. Lowes Dickinson, to serve on a committee dealing with the Chinese Boxer Indemnity Fund and the education question in China, two gentlemen whose fitness for the position could not be questioned, and whose peculiar characteristics were undeniable and could not be challenged, the party opposite, without waiting for the termination of the contract as is done in this Bill, without waiting for the time to arrive for reappointment, shifted them from the Committee because they did not approve of the philosophies and sentiments that
those gentlemen were supposed to possess. Therefore, it comes ill from hon. Members opposite to charge us with vindictiveness. They had little or no ground for removing the gentlemen whose names I have mentioned, but we have good grounds for doing what I am asking the House to do, and I hope that there will not be found on these benches a single representative of working people, the miners in particular, who will vote against my Amendment. Let it be remembered that for centuries the miners have been compelled to use industrial action to improve their conditions. In the industrial struggle the one weapon that can be used and is used against the men who are on strike or locked out, and against their women and Children, is the starvation of the men and their families.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member proceeds on those lines, I am afraid that we shall get far away from the subject of discussion. The fighting of industrial disputes does not arise.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I am only using it as an illustration of the vindictiveness of the statement to which I object. Although starvation is not a weapon that is used by reasonable men, this gentleman gloried in the fact that it has to be used, and he recommended its continuance. It is for that purpose that I move this Amendment, and I hope I shall be accompanied by every Labour member on these benches.

Mr. BATEY: I am sorry that we have to debate this matter at this late hour and still more sorry that the Government have made up their minds to stand by Lord Hunsdon. They propose to give him a certificate of suitability for this position. I can understand a Tory Government doing that, but I cannon understand why a Labour Government should do it. In my opinion Lord Hunsdon by the words he uttered in 1926 proved up to the hilt that he is not a suitable person to be appointed on any board by a Labour Government. We made our position quite clear a fortnight ago. If we were right then we cannot be wrong now, and we propose to insist that this man's name shall be removed from this Board. Since this matter was discussed the words of which we complain have been brought to the notice
of Lord Hunsdon, but so far he has never expressed any regret. If a man is a gentleman and his attention is drawn to words which he may have uttered in the heat of the moment he will express regret, but there has been no regret on the part of Lord Hunsdon. He stands where he did. He said in 1926 that the miners were the enemies of this country. [Interruption.]The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) says "hear, hear."

Mr. CHURCHILL: I did not say anything of the sort.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw.

Mr. BATEY: Yes, of course I will withdraw. Nobody fought us harder than the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1926, but he never uttered anything like that expression. He never said that the miners were the enemies of this country and ought to be starved. It is the most diabolical statement a man can make and we expect him to express regret and withdraw the words. Two arguments have been used for retaining Lord Hunsdon's name upon the Board. One is that if the Government were to remove it there is a possibility for the House of Lords would not pass the Bill. If they refused to pass the Bill there would be trouble with the House of Lords. At the moment I confess that I should like some good clear issue upon which to fight the House of Lords [Interruption.] If they refused to pass a Bill granting loans to public authorities for the purpose of carrying out relief schemes we could not have a better issue upon which to fight them, and I commend that suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Let them throw out the Bill if they wish, we should then have a good case, and if we went to the country upon that issue this Government would come back stronger than it is at the moment. We have been told that if we persist it amounts to "Spoils to the victors." Well, why not? All the long years that the aristocrats have been governing this country they have been giving the spoils to their friends. Now that there is a Labour Government, built up by the pence, the hard work and sacrifices of the working classes, why should they not have some of the spoils of victory? There is no argument in the statement that we want to institute a new system
of spoils to the victors. My answer to that statement is that we would simply be continuing the system that has been in existence in this country ever since there has been a House of Commons. The time has come when a Labour Government, put into power by the working classes, ought to recognise that if there are any honours to be given they should not be given to the enemies of the working classes, but to the working classes themselves. I hope that even now the Government will not persist in their determination to stand by Lord Hunsdon. In my opinion every Member of the House who votes for Lord Hunsdon is backing Lord Hunsdon's words—that the miners are the enemies of the country. I am sorry that we have to divide on the matter, but we intend to do so, and I ask the House to vote with us and show that it disapproves of the name of this Gentleman being amongst the list of Commissioners.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I do not think that this issue ought to be confused in any way, and I feel impelled to rise simply on account of the last words of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. Those of us who go into the Lobby in support of the Government must not be taken for a moment as giving our approval to the sentiments which Lord Hunsdon expressed. No hon. Member on this side of the House would associate himself with the expression that the miners are the enemies of this country. That opinion has nothing whatever to do with the issue before the House. Whatever opinion Lord Hunsdon may have expressed upon the subject of the general strike of two or three years ago does not necessarily affect his qualifications to serve as a member of this Board; it has nothing whatever to do with it. As a matter of fact there are some of us on this side who might, in certain circumstances, have been prepared to acquiesce in the resignation of Lord Hunsdon from this Board, had the Government seen fit to recommend it. But we ought to make it plain in the House of Commons that the Government came down the other day with this Bill, in which they asked us to accept Lord Hunsdon as a member of this Board. What, it seems to us, is the only issue to-night is that if, on account of pressure from the back benches, the Govern-
ment were to throw over their own nominee, which they themselves had invited this House to accept—some of us have many criticisms to make of the administration of the Board during the last two or three years—if the Government were to throw over a member of the Board who has admittedly given devoted service over a large number of years to this Board, that would definitely discourage any public man or public woman from giving voluntary service to any board. This raises a very important issue because, in the future administration of the public life of this country, an immense number of these wholly nonpolitical boards must be created. If we were to vote as the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) suggests, we should be giving definite discouragement to any public-spirited man offering his services to the State in an entirely nonpolitical capacity. That is the reason why we ought to support the Government to-night.

Mr. EDE: It is a significant fact that no Member on the Government benches apart from the Front Bench, has, in any of the discussions on this Measure, risen to support the retention of this name in the Bill. I should be untrue to the very large number of miners whose votes and work have placed me in the House of Commons if I went into the Lobby tonight and gave a silent vote against the retention of this name in the Bill. I join issue at once with the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). I have had many dealings with the Public Works Loans Commissioners. It is a body which has to act in a judicial capacity in considering applications for loans, and surely it is a sound principle that a body which is to act in a judicial capacity should be constituted, not merely so that justice should be done, but so that the people who are going in front of that body should feel assured of justice. During the next few months it is quite possible that various local authorities in the mining areas may have to make applications to the Board for loans. Does anyone mean to tell me that, if the Commissioners turn down an application for a loan from a mining area, no matter how bad the case for the application may be, if this man remains on the Board—after the utterance he has made regarding
what he is prepared to do to the miners—the miners will not be convinced that it was turned down for no other reason than his animosity towards the community of which they form a part? When this matter was last before the House we were told by the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) that it was wrong to criticise this gentleman. The right hon. Member said:—
Let me mention in passing one circumstance that has come to my notice since I spoke, I hope with moderation, earlier in the debate. This has been treated as a Motion of Censure, and it has been characterised as such by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The gentleman whom we are censuring is, I am told, at the present time an invalid and unable to defend himself."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1930, col. 875, Vol. 241.]
In spite of the fact that he was an invalid and unable to defend himself on that occasion, he was able to go to another place two or three days afterwards and vote against certain proposals which the House of Commons sent up there for further consideration—proposals not unconnected with the particular industry with which he was dealing when he made the speech quoted by the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallthead). Really it is too pathetic to hear the hon. Member for East Aberdeen talk about attacking people because of their political opinions and their public expressions on these matters. I was a Member of the House of Commons in 1923 and the Conservative Government of that day proposed that my hon. Friend the present Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should be a member of a Commission appointed to draw up new Statutes for the University of Cambridge and the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) actually moved this Amendment in Committee.
To leave out ….
'Edward Hugh John Neale Dalton, Esquire, Doctor of Science, Cassel Reader in Commerce in the University of London.'
The hon. Member said:—
My reason for moving this Amendment has already been given by the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge. I have nothing to say against the introduction of these two gentlemen and the presence of one of the names is, at any rate, a testimony to the impartiality of the Government in placing on the Commission a defeated Socialist candidate for the Borough of Cambridge. It is no doubt the fact that there is a very strong feeling among the large majority of the members of the Senate of the University of Cambridge that these two
gentlemen should not be on the Commission. They are partisans and, as I said before, it would be a great pity if this Commission should start its work under the suspicion of being a partisan body. On the ground that there is this feeling in the University and that the work of the Commission would be greatly handicapped by this feeling among the responsible representatives of the University I beg to move the Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee B), 11th July, 1923, col. 681.]

Mr. DIXEY: Did they carry that Amendment?

Mr. EDE: If the hon. Member has a little patience I will tell him the whole story. The Amendment was not carried but the hon. Member for Windsor and his friends were not daunted by one failure and on the Report stage the then member for the University of Cambridge, Mr. J. F. P. Rawlinson—a lawyer, if ever there was one.—

Viscountess ASTOR: He was a great friend of the children.

Mr. EDE: I think the noble lady and myself held similar opinions with regard to him. He was the biggest troglodyte that ever lived.

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Viscountess ASTOR: I think it only fair to say that although we may have held some opinions which he did not hold, everybody knows that there was no man in the whole of England who was so kind to the children as the late Member for Cambridge University.

Mr. GODFREY WILSON: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Gentleman in order in referring in this way to a Member of the House of Commons who has been dead far some years?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I must confess that I did not quite catch the hon. Member's meaning. [HON. MEMBERS: "He called him a cave-man!"] I am aware of that but I am sure that the hon. Member did not use the expression in any offensive sense. I think, however, it is much better that no references of that kind should be made to former Members of the House who are dead.

Mr. EDE: I have no desire to hurt the feelings of any hon. Member. My reference was intended to be humorous and not offensive. I was a friend of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to whom I
alluded, and, if my remark was taken as offensive, I willingly withdraw. I hope the incident may be allowed to rest there, because in a matter like this we do not want to raise unnecessary heat. When the matter came up on the Report stage, that very distinguished Member, on the same grounds, moved for the withdrawal of the same name—that of a gentleman who was qualified in every way except for political opinions, if political opinions be a disqualification to hold that particular office. I feel, as representing a great mining community, that the Government do not realise the length of memory that the mining community have in this matter, or the depth of the hatred in which they hold this name. I cannot, as the representative of the miners, do otherwise than vote to-night for the removal of this name from the Bill.

Sir JOHN FERGUSON: I will not take up much of the time of the Committee, but it happens that I was present on the occasion on which Lord Hunsdon made his alleged statement—[Interruption]. It was made at a meeting in the City of London. He was referring, among many other things, to the strike—[HON. MEMBERS: "Lock out."]—and, in the heat of the moment, he used words such as might be construed to mean what we have heard to-night. He immediately corrected himself within two minutes of having said it and put the matter perfectly right. I hold no brief for Lord Hunsdon, but I have known him for many years in business, and I know there was nothing further from his mind than to make such a statement as that. People who are engaged in business have not, perhaps the same facility of expression as comes from training in this House, but I am sure hon. Members opposite, who know perfectly well that I have no axe to grind in this matter at all, will believe me when I say that Lord Hunsdon immediately put the matter right before he left the room. I think it is only right that I should state that publicly.

HON. MEMBERS: How did he put that right?

Mr. COCKS: I rise to support the Amendment. I am astonished that, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has seen fit to oppose it. It is said that, if the Amendment were carried, it would be re-
introducing the spoils system into public life. That is all unutterable nonsense. It is always with us, and the people who have the spoils are the capitalists and the Tory party. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have always boasted that they do not mind very much who presides for the time being over the Treasury bench, because they always rule and govern the country through the control of finance and another place and control of Committees such as we are discussing to-night. This Amendment is an attack on the spoils system and to prevent the re-election of this Peer, who is 76 years of age and has been on for 46 years. Because it is an attack on the spoils system I am astonished that the Government should support the continuance of that system by opposing the Amendment. I was reading in a newspaper which everybody regards as one of the finest papers in the country—the "Manchester Guardian"—that "age, temper and judgment" were no irrelevant in discussing the qualifications of members of the Board. Upon that ground, Lord Hunsdon is absolutely unqualified for sitting on the Board or any other Board. A few years ago he stated—in spite of the speech of the hon. Member opposite—that he considered the miners were the enemies of the country and that as we did not feed the Germans—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not want unduly to interfere, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that that quotation has been repeated on at least a dozen occasions.

Mr. COCKS: I thank you, Mr. Dunnico, for that reminder. I will not repeat it again, but it is within the memory of the Committee what Lord Hunsdon said. A statement of that sort is a libel on some of the finest people in the country. Everybody knows that the miners volunteered in great numbers in the War, in such great numbers that many thousands had to be sent home to work the mines. The Noble Lord the Member for Newark (Marquess of Titchfield) will agree with me that the Sherwood Foresters, who represented the Notts miners, were some of the finest fighting material in the British Army. The man who slandered these gallant men is given his reward
four years later by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who places him again on this Board. That is not what we ought to expect of members of the Socialist party. Is this the end of all our wanderings? Have we wandered all these years in the desert of opposition, have we come back to popularity and power in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can place Lord Hunsdon on this body? I have heard a great deal about Socialism in our time, but what we have is Lord Hunsdon all our time. What is the meaning of the inevitability of gradualness? Does it mean the inevitability of Lord Hunsdon?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has been corrected twice. He must keep within the bounds of Order.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. When you called the hon. Member to Order on the first occasion, he was correcting misstatements that are being made. The unwritten rule of this House is that an hon. Member must be called to Order three times before he is asked to sit down. I ask you whether the hon. Member ought not to be treated the same as any other hon. Member and have as many chances given to him.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Chairman does not need to be educated in his duties by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I rose twice to correct the hon. Member and thought that he had finished, but the hon. Member may continue his speech if he has not finished.

Mr. COCKS: I am the last person in the House to dispute your Ruling, Mr. Dunnico. You reminded me that a certain quotation had been made by other hon. Members, and I accepted that, and tried to keep within the Rules of Order. I do not see where I overstepped the Rules. I will leave the particular point which I was making.
12 m.
There has been a threat, I understand, that if this Amendment is carried the Government will resign. I have never heard a more grotesque suggestion. Fancy the Government going to the country against their own party, with the battle cry of "Hunsdon and starvation"! I can conceive a more effective election cry than that. But
there is no danger of the Government being defeated on this issue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is sure of the support of hon. Members opposite. I do not know about the legions of Portugal, but I do know, as regards the hon. Members opposite above the Gangway, that the rival legions of Beaverbrook and Bewdley have at last been united—both the people with dirty hands and the people who have not yet taken off their gloves. After all, it is only natural to expect the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) to support the appointment of Lord Hunsdon, because it was during the strike—[HON. MEMBERS: "Strike!"]—lock-out—that the right hon. Gentleman sent a telegram to America telling the Americans not to send money to prevent our people from being starved.
All these people will be supporting the Chancellor of the Exchequor. The other day the Chancellor described the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley) as a guinea pig. I consider that charge was unjustified, but all the guinea pigs are with the Chancellor to-day, all the representatives of the financial and banking interests. We have heard of the prodigal son and the herd of swine. That is nothing to the parsimonious Chancellor of the Exchequer and his herd of guinea pigs, genuflecting not before the fatted calf but before the golden calf. He will get his majority, but, when the roll is called, he will not see behind him the men who have fought for Socialism on many a stricken field, the representatives of South Wales, of Yorkshire, of the coal fields of Durham and Nottingham. We have been told that if we disagree with the Chancellor's action in this matter we need not vote. We can sit still and see injustice done. This is how that attitude has been described by a modern poet in, perhaps, some of the bitterest lines I have ever read.
Be still, be still, my soul,
It is but for a season.
Let us abide an hour and see injustice done.
I cannot be still and see injustice done. I hope the Government will give us a free vote, but if they refuse then, not gaily or joyously, but in a spirit of sorrowful determination, I intend to give a vote against the appointment of a man who by his callous and cruel utterance shows that he is unworthy of any public
office, especially one received at the hands of a Socialist Government.

Mr. DIXEY: I am placed in a very awkward position on this question, because I happen to represent a constituency which includes a considerable number of miners, and consequently I deprecate the words of the quotation which has been read by the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead). As a Member of this House, I consider that we are entitled, before we discuss an important question of this kind, to have a statement from the Front Bench opposite. I understand from the newspapers that there has been a meeting of the members of the party opposite and that that meeting, by a very narrow majority, decided in favour of Lord Hunsdon's name remaining on the list of Commissioners. I would like the Chairman of the Committee himself to give a lead to the House in this matter. This is an important question. Here we have a member of another place who, apart from one indiscretion, is a gentleman of the highest moral character—I may say a gentleman of as high a moral character as any hon. Gentleman sitting opposite—and because of some silly phrase used by him at a political meeting, which I understand he has withdrawn, his name is to be excluded from the list of Commissioners appointed under this Bill.
What about the Prime Minister? What about the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the wonderful work which he has done as shown in the unemployment returns which have nearly reached 2,000,000? What would happen if the Prime Minister were to be condemned for all the silly things he may have said from time to time? What about the things which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the critical times of the War, the most critical Lime in the history of this country, which I will not quote against him? In spite of those things, in the greatest city in this country, including the guinea pigs referred to—there are guinea pigs on the other side of the House as well as on this—those gentlemen who control the capitalist system of this country conferred the highest honour they could upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In spite of all that, members of the Socialist party come here, and man after man they get up and waste the time of this Committee — [Interruption]—
debating whether a venerable old gentleman like Lord Hunsdon ought to be allowed to sit on a Board which, at all events, is doing good public work for the nation. I put it to hon. Members opposite and to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), who is always to be heard on a question of real public importance, but who has not been very quick to get up to-night. We all agree that the miners as a class represent the cream of the workers of the country. None of us on this side has a word to say against the average working miner. What we say is that the words of Lord Hunsdon would have been perfectly justified if they had been issued against the person who, as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil said, rattled and misled them.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent me. I did not say they deserted them. I said had the statement been made against members of the executive I should take no notice of it. That would have been legitimate criticism. I did not say whether they deserted them or not.

Mr. DIXEY: I have no fault to find with the hon. Member. He knows that what I said is true, in substance, and he would not have quarrelled with it. I shall vote with the Government, not because I have any respect for them and their decision, but because I believe this is a charge of pure vndictiveness brought by the party opposite in order to curry favour with the constituents.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I did not think it necessary that I should intervene, but the hon. Member seems to be under the impression that I should give some lead to the House, and I have no hesitation in doing so. I very deeply regret that this incident has arisen; and I can quite understand the actual indignation and feeling of the miners' Members. But we have heard to-night from the hon. Member opposite that on the occasion when these words were uttered by Lord Hunsdon, realising the seriousness of what he had said, he took the earliest possible opportunity of withdrawing them. No one, I am sure, would have justified such an expression, and to that extent I am wholly with the
expressions of indignation that have been made. But, if we are to disqualify a man from occupying a position of voluntary service simply because of his political views or of some indiscretion, there are very few people who would not be disqualified. I am certain neither I nor any Member on this side of the House would be able to fulfil such a qualification. Some of my hon. Friends have defended what they call the spoils system. I certainly do not do that. It has been my duty during the last 12 months to make selections for Committees and Commissions and other forms of public service, and I have never taken into consideration a man's political views, and so long as I have those duties to discharge I never shall. I do it solely from the point of view of the individual's qualifications for the work he has to perform. It may be that sometimes I have selected for appointment a member of my own party, not because he was a member of my own party, but because I believed he had very special qualifications. Lord Hunsdon has been serving the public in this capacity for nearly half a century and I have heard not one single word to-night of complaint about the way in which he has discharged his duties. I knew nothing about this incident until it was raised when the Bill was in Committee about a week ago. To withdraw the name of Lord Hunsdon now for something he said a few years ago, for which I understand he was sorry, would be an act of ingratitude for half a century of public service, and I am not prepared to do it. We shall oppose the Amendment, and, if any members of the party behind me go into the Lobby in support of it, all of them, I believe, with the exception of the hon. Member who spoke from just below the Gangway, will do so from honourable and conscientious motives.

Mr. COCKS: On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman in order in accusing me by implication of not acting from honourable and conscientious motives?

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Robert Young): I gather the purport of the implication. It was not directly made, but still deprecate the way it was said.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

Mr. COCKS: Will you, Sir, ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to withdraw the remark?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to say he is perfectly right in his interpretation of the hon. Member's speech, which is without parallel for its offensiveness.

Mr. COCKS: The right hon. Gentleman is a good judge of offensiveness.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

Mr. SNOWDEN: I fully appreciate the feeling which prompts the minds of Members of the House in their support of this Amendment. I sympathise with them, but they have expressed feelings upon the matter to which I equally take exception. The Government cannot accept the Amendment, and any Members sitting behind me who go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment will do so upon their own responsibility.

Mr. CAPE: I want, first of all, to repudiate the statement which was made by the hon. Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Mr. Dixey) when he said that we on this side were opposing this appointment in a spirit of vindictiveness. As an old Member of the House, I wish to state that the miners' Members have not at any time shown any vindictiveness to their opponents in this assembly. During the 1926 controversy we met with terrific opposition and a large amount of criticism from hon. Members who now occupy the Opposition benches. We accepted that criticism in the spirit in which it was made, and on no occasion can it be said that we have shown any vindictiveness when we have replied to the criticism that has been hurled at us. Not only as a Member of Parliament, but as a member of the Executive Committee of the Miners' Federation during 1926, I want to make a clear and distinct statement that, as far as criticism was concerned, we did not squeal against it. We realised that not only Members of this House, but the public outside would have different points of view, and, being Britishers, we took up the position that every man in this country had a right to express his point of view so long as he confined himself to fair criticism.
There is not a single hon. Member who has taken part in this debate who has been prepared to say that the words of the Noble Lord who is referred to in the
Amendment can be styled as fair criticism. One part of that criticism almost reached the realm of vilification, and it is on that ground alone that we, as miners' Members, are joining with the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead) in backing up this Amendment. The Noble Lord, in the statement which he made, particularly went out of his way to vilify a class of men who at that time were fighting for principles which they thought to be right. We still think that the fight in 1926 was for justice and right. I am one of the back bench Members of this party who, generally speaking, follow the lead of the Government, and up to the present time I have not cast a vote against the Government. I make this frank confession that many times my conscience has been stretched to the uttermost limits, and on the present occasion it is stretched to breaking point. Much as I regret it, I shall find myself in the Lobby against the Government if this question goes to a Division. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has put the position for the Government. He has told us that it is their intention to stand by what they propose. I feel it very deeply to-night that I am not in agreement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The suggestion that these appointments are non-political is all bunkum. The committee was appointed some years ago, and nearly every member of it belongs to one political party. I cannot be persuaded that the members of the committee were appointed upon an unbiased and unpolitical basis. It will be found on analysis that on any committee of any importance that was appointed by the late Government 80 or 90 per cent. of the members belonged to the Conservative party. Therefore, when hon. Members try to tell me that appointments of this kind should be made outside political aspirations, it leaves me quite cold.
The miner Members of Parliament cannot be accused of vindictiveness in matters that have been debated in this House; but on the present occasion hon. Members may call us vindictive if they like. Hon. Members opposite criticised us very much during 1926 in a way that sometimes made us very resentful, but we never brought a vindictive spirit into the debates at that period. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about calling us mur-
derers?"] It does not matter what hon. Members call us on this occasion. They may say that we are vindictive, or they may use a more far-reaching word; the fact remains that we cannot resist the opportunity to show our resentment at the words used by the gentleman whose re-appointment to the committee is proposed by the Government, and I believe that every representative of the miners in the Labour party will go into the Lobby against the Government.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: This is not only a matter for representatives of the miners but for every man or woman who has come here in the name of the Labour movement. It is a very serious matter that we are having submitted to the House. There is no evidence, as far as we have heard to-night, of anything in the Press reports in the nature of a withdrawal. It seems very remarkable that it should now be said at this stage that there was a withdrawal on the spot.

Sir J. FERGUSON: I beg to tell the Committee again that immediately the statement was made by Lord Hunsdon, he said, in perfectly clear language, that he was very sorry that he had used such words. [Interruption.] That is perfectly right and that is the perfectly gentlemanly explanation which he made at once.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: The explanation given by the hon. Member now gives us a little better understanding that his Lordship was endeavouring to apply some better meaning to his words than was originally intended. But I wish to submit that his lordship was perfectly conscious of what was the actual meaning of those most important words used on that occasion. I rather think there were others who had exactly the same thought in their minds but they had not the courage to express it.

An HON. MEMBER: Like Lord Derby.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I want to say further that it is appalling to think that any man representative of public life should come forward and make such a daring assertion against those noble workers to whom the highest tributes have been paid again and again, particularly when some great mining disasters have taken place.
The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), put in the form of a question: Is this the end of our wanderings? I want to suggest to the hon. Gentlemen who are taking up this position to-night that this is only the beginning of the wanderings of the Labour party. The suggestion that has been made that the selection for this Committee is non-political is symptomatic of the dangers which the Labour party are running day by day. This is a momentous occasion. It is far-reaching and significant, further than any man or woman who is giving close attention to political developments under the present Government can foresee. Reference Vitas been made to the risks of going into the Lobby against the Government. You are to go into the Lobby at your risk or abstain from doing your duty to the workers by selling them politically. It is appalling that men who have toiled in the very bowels of the earth under terrible conditions should have such insulting language directed at them. It is a call for the deepest expression of indignation that a Labour leader should deliver himself in such a way that he had actually to be called upon to apologise and withdraw a statement made about one of his faithful followers who seldom addresses the House. Having made such a statement and submitting that any Labour representative should not stand by this Amendment is proof of that failure of the Labour Government which I am sorry to say is going to lead to the failure of the Labour party at the next General Election.
The hon. Member who has just spoken as a representative of the miners says that he has had his conscience strained to the utmost limit when he has gone into the Lobby before. What does that mean for the Labour movement? It means that conscience has got to be suppressed. What is taking place to-night will encourage such members as the hon. Member who has just spoken and instead of the disaster which seems to be facing the Labour party we are going to reach the Cape of Good Hope.

Mr. MAXTON: It is a most extraordinary situation in which the House finds itself to-night. Everybody knows—I say it quite advisedly, and Members in all parts of the House know perfectly well—that this Noble Lord is not a suitable person to perform these very important
public duties at this particular time. Every one of us knows that. And at a time in this nation's history when we wanted the greatest initiative, wisdom and drive in the organisation of our national life, we find a responsible Minister coming into the House and recommending to us a body of persons to decide about important local policy, not one of them capable of having a sympathetic understanding of the Government's policy. We have also this outstanding case of a man who has definitely shown that he is completely out of sympathy with all the aims and aspirations of the working classes of this country. I was very interested to note that the principal speaker on the Conservative side of the House was the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Eastern (Mr. Boothby), because if one looks at the statement of the loans and amounts to be written off, one finds that dating right back to 1877 up to the present time. Fraserburgh harbour appears quite regularly. It has been a borrower of regular sums—£40,000, £50,000, £30,000 and so on—and always at each period a large proportion of the principal is written off. I can understand the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Eastern, being quite satisfied with the composition of the Board and its operations in the past, but I have a greater understanding of the attitude of the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead). Merthyr is largely a miners' town and has an honourable connection with this party, and by far the majority of its population is unemployed miners. I can understand a representative of that town wanting some control of the personnel of a committee that is going to decide upon claims that might be put forward by Merthyr or similar towns and that will give healthy employment to the people of the area and improve the amenities of the place. I appreciate very much the point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and hon. Members opposite in backing up Parliament. I have done that quite frequently myself, often on occasions when I was not quite sure that it deserved my backing. But I do not think I ever did it when the public weal was so much involved as in this matter here. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer should allow his desire not to let down permanent officials at the Treasury or men who have given public service on this Committee in past years to lead him into a course which is
a letting down of a very large proportion of the common people of this land. I ask him quite seriously, and without any heat, to adjourn the debate for this evening and bring the Council of State into operation—the whole Council of State and not just the two-thirds that has been normally operative—and see if an agreement cannot be reached to fill this Board with live, energetic men, following the course adopted by the party opposite when they were in office of allocating the places on the Board roughly in proportion to the various parties in this House. That is the intelligent and wise thing to do.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Although the hour is very late, perhaps it would be right for some hon. Members in other quarters of the House to express their views on this important matter besides those Members in the various sections on the Labour party. For my own part, I am in complete disagreement with all the views expressed by Lord Hunsdon in the course of his political career, and the political observation so often quoted in this debate appears to me to be outrageous. That is the only epithet that can properly describe it. But the point is whether his name should be struck off the list of the Commissioners of public works. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Marton) says that Lord Hunsdon is not fitted to perform this particular duty. If he and his hon Friends had given to the Committee any reasons as to why Lord Hunsdon was unfitted for the particular duty, no doubt the House would have considered them, but an observation made in heat at a particular time and subsequently withdrawn—

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Sir H. SAMUEL: We are informed that that was so. It is not a proof that he is disqualified for acting as a Commissioner for public loans. If hon. Members opposite had proclaimed to the Committee that their party was not sufficiently represented on this Board and had asked for further representation, that would have been a matter which, whatever party might have been in power, would have been considered and probably acceded to. But that is not the claim made in this particular case. It is urged that one individual should be struck off the list for his political views
and the way in which he expressed them. If that is right in one case, it is right in all similar cases. If at some future date a Government of another complexion came into power and took exception to some observations made by a Labour representative and we struck off that name for that reason, then I think hon. Members opposite would complain with vehemence and would be quite right to do so, and any such action seems to me to be most deleterious to the public interest. It would mean that we should have to abandon the present national practice and healthful custom in the public interest of bringing in all sections into the public service on all authorities performing duties of a public national character. If it is understood that each Government strikes off the names of persons it dislikes, we shall be introducing a new and most regrettable principle into the conduct of our affairs, and, once introduced, democracy would be to some degree on the down grade. I think the House should support the Government in their action.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not intend to continue this discussion, especially as the speech we have just listened to from the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) has, to a very large extent expressed what I believe to be the general view on these benches. It is our intention in the Division to support the Government in the attitude that they have adopted. I take this further opportunity of congratulating the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the firmness and determination with which he has repulsed one of the most spiteful and venomous procedures against an individual which I have ever seen in this House. When we look back upon the disaster of the labour troubles of three years ago and all the wrong things said and done, including words in all sorts of quarters, when we remember that leniency has been shown even to men who placed stones on the railway lines, I am astounded that those who have the gravest need to seek oblivion and to plead that bygones should be bygones should have given us the exhibition to which we have been treated to-night.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: I am a little surprised at the line taken by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Batey) and
also at the characteristic speech of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. During the period of 1926 we had a Tory Government in office, and we had a Tory Lord Chancellor. Some of us remember that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) was a Member of the Coal Commission in 1925. I do not want to enter into that, but I want to remind him that the then Tory Lord Chancellor removed a number of men from the Bench and not a single one of them has been returned. If there was any venom, spite and vindictiveness, it was shown then by Members of the party opposite. It is not with good will that I go into the Lobby against the Government, but I am going. I want those opposite to realise that other people can be determined as well as the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have an open mind on this matter, and I would be prepared to take the line suggestd by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). It would suggest a means by which not only this matter could be settled satisfactorily, but would be an opportunity to set up a Committee which would do what the people outside are expecting.
I do not want to be offensive to this man. I understand he is 76 years of age. The Member for Darwen has stated that there is no reason why this man's name should be withdrawn from the list of Commissioners. I submit that it is sufficient reason that it is time that this man was retired. I resent the suggestion, conveyed not only from the other side but from our own side, that men sitting on these benches have not as much capacity as gentlemen chosen previously.
The time has come when Members on this side will have to make it perfectly clear, that, if we are capable of being chosen by our countrymen to represent them here, we are capable of representing them in the capacity of Commissioners or members of Committees. I do not want to go into the lobby against the Government. I would prefer that the Government even now would agree to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bridgeton to adjourn this debate and ask all the parties to agree in putting up a real live Committee that would be capable of rendering service to the country. I know something of the history of my country, sufficient to know that now we have political power we
shall have economic power. If Members of the Opposition are going to take up the position that spoils are to go to them, whether they are in office or not, I have to tell them that that period has come to an end. I certainly hope better counsels will prevail and that a system will be established which will enable all parties to be fairly represented on Commissions of this sort. Why not on this particular Commission? I hope that every miners' Member in this House, and every member of the Labour party, will vote against the Government.

Mr. BROAD: If the vote about to be taken were one in condemnation of Lord Hunsdon, then without hesitation I should be with this vote against him. But it is something more: it is a vote of no confidence in our Government. I think that is the position, especially in view of the statements which have been made. I have had no private communications, but I think I can see how the position has arisen. In the ordinary way, almost automatically, these names have been put forward for reappointment without knowledge or thought of the opinions held against these people. Had our Ministers in the first place been fully appraised of the position; had they had an opportunity of knowing, in all probability they would have found some tactful way of handling the position. I do not see how it is possible at this particular moment, or at any time since this Bill was put forward for the Minister to withdraw these names. I do not like some of the arguments used from our Front Bench. The original Act of 1875 arranges for the reconstitution of this Commission every five years. It was the intention of the original Act that there should be such reconstitution, and that those responsible for the Government should have to select the names. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary are now fully appraised of the full case against these names. Had they, first of all, nominated this individual and then withdrawn the nomination, it would have been a gratuitous public affront which we could not have justified in this House.
1.0 a.m.
I deplore that the name has been put forward, but we should be resentful if one of our point of view had been named by a party in office and then they had publicly affronted that man by withdraw-
ing his name. I have as much abjection as I had the other day to the principle laid down that a gentleman, however eminent he may have been in his day, if once appointed to a commission should be there for ever and ever although there may be a change of Government. We have been too long excluded from these Commissions, and I think the Government should have been more careful in submitting these names to us. Having once put forward the name, the Minister could not without breach of all the common decencies in public life then withdraw it. These attacks therefore on the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary are not justified.[Interruption].—Hon. Members may have been right in expressing their condemnation of one who has proved by his language that he is an enemy of the people, of one who has preached the class war, who has proved himself the greatest enemy of the people by his desire to starve the people to his will, who belongs to that class of financiers who have benefited by the return to the gold standard. That man is an enemy of the people, and I am glad this point of view has been expressed here this evening, but I do not see how we, as a party can do more.—[interruption].

Viscountess ASTOR: As the woman who was the first to enter into this House, I can truthfully say I never witnessesd a more distressing evening than this. I am not going into the merits of the appointment of Lord Hunsdon. There are different reasons urged against him. Some say that he is too old, others that he has made a mistake, others that he is an enemy of the working people. Throughout the House, however, there has been a real tribute to-night to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the great courage he had shown. [Interruption]. I admire courage wherever I see it, and to me, as a politician, it is positively painful to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has given long service to the Socialist party, long before some of the hon. Members were born, absolutely vilified by the highbrows of the Labour party in this way. That to me has been very painful. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken a stand, not for one section of the House, but for public life in England and Wales. People are talking as though it were a great honour
to serve on committees nowadays, but it is a great hardship. Nothing has shocked me more than to see the ungenerous attitude which the hon. Members opposite show and their absolute lack of fair-play to one of the bravest and most honourable men in public life to-day. I do not always agree with him, but it ill becomes hon. Members, who are not fit to tie his shoe strings to speak in the way that they have done to-night. I only wish the right hon. Gentleman had behind him more men of courage who enjoyed also the confidence of the public.

Mr. LAWTHER: I wish to say a few words about the message put forward by this gentleman—we are precluded on this occasion from calling him by any other term. Speaking as a miners' representative, I have heard no argument put forward to-night to change me from the decision I took when this individual's name was first put forward, namely, to vote against his inclusion on any body whatever. I have no hesitation in declaring that, if this issue we are now to decide were placed before mining communities, they would regard this name in the light in which it ought to be regarded. I remember

very clearly in 1926 how I was privileged, like many hon. Members of this House, to read the utterances put forward by Lord Hunsdon. [Interruption.] You can bark as long as you like, but I am going to put forward the miners' position in regard to this creature. I remember very vividly hearing this incident related to me. As far as we are concerned, the statements which he has put forward and all the excuses put forward on his behalf to-night only make his crime worse than it was. It has been put forward as an excuse for what he said in 1926 that he was an old man and did not know what he was saying. Then the only course we can adopt is to get rid of him by carrying this Amendment. It will immediately be said that it is too humane a remedy. Despite the utterances of the Noble Lady, as a miners' representative I believe that we should be betraying the confidence of those who elected us if we did not do everything in our power towards putting this creature out of office.

Question put, "That line 14 stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 209: Noes, 63.

Division No. 457.]
AYES.
[1.10 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Clarke, J. S.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Cluse, W. S.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Colman, N. C. D.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Compton, Joseph
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Albery, Irving James
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Harris, Percy A.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Ammon, Charles George
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Arnott, John
Day, Harry
Henderson, Arthur. Junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Aske, Sir Robert
Dixey, A. C.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Astor, Viscountess
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Atkinson, C.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edmunds, J. E.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth. Bedwellty)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)


Beaumont, M. W.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Harriotts, J.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Elmley, Viscount
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Benson, G.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Iveagh, Countess of


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)


Beiterton, Sir Henry B.
Ferguson, Sir John
Jones, Rt. Hon Leil (Camborne)


Birkett, W. Norman
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)


Blindell, James
Foot, Isaac
Kennedy, Thomas


Boothby, R. J. G.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Bracken, B.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lathan, G.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Gibbins, Joseph
Lawrence, Susan


Brothers, M.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Lawson, John James


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Gill, T. H.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gillett, George M.
Lunn, William


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lymington, Viscount


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Glassey, A. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Burgess, F. G.
Gower, Sir Robert
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
McElwee, A.


Butler, R. A.
Gray, Milner
McEntee, V. L.


Church, Major A. G.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Margesson, Captain H. D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Strauss, G. R.


Markham, S. F.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Marshall, Fred
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Thomson, Sir F.


Mathers, George
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Melville, Sir James
Romeril, H. G.
Tout, W. J.


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Townend, A. E.


Milner, Major J.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Train, J.


Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Salmon, Major I.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Montague, Frederick
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Viant, S. P.


Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Walkden, A. G.


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Muirhead, A. J.
Sanders, W. S.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Nathan, Major H. L.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Watkins, F. C.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sawyer, G. F.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wayland, Sir William A.


O'Connor, T. J.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
White, H. G.


O'Neill, Sir H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Oldfield, J. R.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Sitch, Charles H.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Skelton, A. N.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Palin, John Henry
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Paling, Wilfrid
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Penny, Sir George
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smithers, Waldron
Womersley, W. J.


Pybus, Percy John
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Somerset, Thomas
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Ramsbotham, H.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)



Rathbone, Eleanor
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Mr. Benjamin Smith and Mr.


Remer, John R.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Barnes.


NOES.


Alpass, J. H.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Price, M. P.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hopkin, Daniel
Ritson, J.


Barr, James
Horrabin, J. F.
Rowson, Guy


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Sandham, E.


Bromley, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Scrymgeour, E.


Brooke, W.
Kinley, J.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Shield, George William


Buchanan, G.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Simmons, C. J.


Cape, Thomas
Lees, J.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lindley, Fred W.
Stephen, Campbell


Cove, William G.
Longden, F.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Daggar, George
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Sullivan, J.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
MacLaren, Andrew
Toole, Joseph


Duncan, Charles
McShane, John James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Ede, James Chuter
Matters, L. W.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Maxton, James
Westwood, Joseph


Gould, F.
Mester, Fred
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Moses, J. J. H.
Wise, E. F.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)



Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Muff, G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Haycock, A. W.
Murnin, Hugh
Mr. Wallhead and Mr. Batey.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, at the end, to insert the words,
William Baker Neville, Esquire,
Charles Latham, Esquire,
Harrison Barrow, Esquire,
William Turner Jackson, Esquire.
I hope that in all parts of the Committee there will be an acceptance of this Amendment. When this Bill was before the House on Second Reading I said that the Government would be willing, and, indeed, they desire, to invite the services of some of the additional Commissioners who would have a different view-point from that of those already on the Board,
and that we would find representatives who had had experience of finance either some of the big municipalities of the country or in Co-operative Societies. Every member knows that the borrowings which this particular Board has to sanction are not by the larger local bodies which borrow on their own account. Of the four men whose names I submit to the Committee, believing it will meet with approval, three, Mr. Charles Latham, Mr. Harrison Barrow and Mr. Jackson, are men who have been acquainted with finance on the big municipalities; Mr. Latham in London, Mr. Harrison Barrow in the Birmingham Municipal Council and Mr. Jackson in
Manchester. Large questions of finance are also dealt with by the Woolwich Co-operative Societies, of which Mr. Neville is secretary. I believe that these names will commend themselves to the Committee as men with wide experience, from a somewhat different angle from those gentlemen who already sit on the Board.

Captain CROOKSHANK: A few minutes ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us most emphatically that he never took political views into consideration in making appointments. The speech which the Financial Secretary has made seems to point out that the general qualification of these gentlemen is on political lines. However, no doubt he will be able to reconcile the differences between himself and the right hon. Gentleman. I want to know whether the Mr. Harrison Barrow mentioned is the notorious gentleman of that name? [Interruption.] It is a perfectly straightforward question.

HON. MEMBERS: Notorious for what?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I did not hear the concluding words of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I certainly do resent the form in which he puts his question that political considerations have not entered into these proposals at all. I happen personally to know Mr. Jackson, who either is or was Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Manchester Corporation. Mr. Harrison Barrow either was or is Chairman of the Finance Committee of the City of Birmingham, and I believe, an ex-Lord Mayor.

Captain CROOKSHANK: After the debate we have had one does not want to make statements in this House simply because people happen to have similar names, but I think the House will want to know whether this is the gentleman who was sentenced to six months' imprisonment during the War. If the Chancellor cannot tell me, the Government ought to consider the question, because a gentleman of that name was, on 24th May, 1918, at the Guildhall, sentenced to six months imprisonment. Is it or is it not the same gentleman?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: If I ever did remember the incident to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers I had entirely forgotten it. He is a member of the
Society of Friends, and some of my friends behind me say that a conviction was registered against him on account of his association with some publication during the War. That is all I know, but I have already said, and I repeat, that since then he has been Lord Mayor of Birmingham, and I am sure that the fact that the citizens of Birmingham thought him fit for the highest honour they could offer him ought to satisfy the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Mr. BARR: It seems to me a most remarkable thing that those who went into the Lobby because they said politics should not enter into appointments now raise a political question. I know many members will disagree with me, but in ordinary cases I believe in the principle of not allowing political or other considerations to enter into the question of appointments, but I do hold also that there may be cases, on one side or the other, in which they should understand that there are those on the other side who have strong feelings, but for my part I am not ashamed to stand here and to say that I think those who underwent the sacrifice and made the stand did a great service.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I am afraid I was sneaking from a rather dim recollection in regard to Mr. Harrison Barrow and the Lord Mayoralty. I am told that he was offered the Lord Mayoralty but refused to accept it.

Mr. CHURCHILL: What an extraordinary situation! The Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted and confessed to the House that the Government had taken no real trouble to search up the antecedents of these gentlemen who are now to be added to the Commissioners. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has presented those names, including the name of a gentleman who has apparently served a long term of imprisonment, without even being aware of the facts. [Interruption.]

Mr. MARLEY: On a point of Order.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman must allow the right hon. Gentleman to proceed. I will call him to order if he is out of order.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order, may I ask whether an hon. Member is
entitled from his seat in the House, to shout another hon. Member's name across the floor repeatedly and offensively?

The CHAIRMAN: I will deal with the hon. Member if he is out of order. It is not confined to one side of the House. I did not hear any name mentioned.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Perhaps I may be allowed to develop my argument. We have listened to a good many views from the other side of the House. It is clear that these names have not been examined from the point of view of the merits of the individuals and the work they have to do, nor from the point of view of commanding public confidence or adding to the weight and authority of the Board, when we find that a member is appointed who has a record for striking at the interests of this country during the crisis of the War. We are not now dealing with mere words, however ill conceived or ill conditioned. We are dealing with actions that have been the subject of proceedings before the proper tribunals and punished at law, and for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come down to this House ignorant of a matter of this kind, which was common knowledge as soon as the names appeared on the Order paper, shows that he has not given proper attention to the real merits of the case.
We know perfectly well wily this proposal has been brought forward; it was a desperate attempt by the Government to stave off the anger of their own supporters below the gangway. When the Measure was first brought before the House there was no idea of adding these names. It was only when auger was expressed at the appointment of Lord Hunsdon that the Government sought to find a line of least resistance, not by excluding Lord Hunsdon, but by throwing in additional names to dilute, as it were, the hostility. None of these names would have been put forward at all if the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had done his duty the other day, and had not, in the most cowardly manner, moved the adjournment of the debate. He has had an example from his chief of Parliamentary duty as discharged by a Minister. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not be content simply with flouting his own supporters; he should discharge his duty by examining the character and antecedents of the men whose names are submitted to the House of Commons for
inclusion in public bodies of this important character [Interruption]. I shall not take much longer if I am not interrupted, although it would be quite easy to dilate on this subject. This proposal is purely political in its character and is not made to improve the Committee. It is an attempt to placate the wrath of the miners' members and other Socialists. Why does the Chancellor of the Exchequer wish to do it now? He has carried his division and we have supported him. Why should we add these further names to a Committee already as large as has been found necessary for its work? As far as we are concerned, we will have nothing to do with this weak and dishonest expedient, nor take any part in placing on a public board at this time a man who has to his record a criminal conviction for malicious injury to this country in time of war.

Mr. SIMMONS: I intervene because Mr. Harrison Barrow is a colleague of mine in the representation of a ward on Birmingham City Council. I know him personally and the value of the work he has done on behalf of the citizens of Birmingham. In the early part of the war he was Lord Mayor-elect for the City of Birmingham, but did not take on the office because, being a member of the Society of Friends, he felt he could not take on the offices that would accrue to the Lord Mayoralty during the progress of the war. He will strengthen this Board to a very considerable degree. He has been chairman of the Birmingham Corporation Tramways Committee, and he is a respected member of the Birmingham Corporation Finance Comittee; and I would ask the House to remember that Birmingham is the second largest city in the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, it may be the third. Mr. Harrison Barrow is also a member of the Birmingham Municipal Bank Committee, and at least two of those offices eminently fit him for the job for which he has been selected by the Government on this occasion. During the last municipal election campaign, so well respected was he that he received 5,800 votes, which is more than some hon. Members opposite may have received in a Parliamentary election. As far as his term of imprisonment is concerned, there are some men one can honour for making a stand
for principle, especially when they are protecting other people who have been first attacked. What happened was that during the war period certain inoffensive working class persons were arrested for distributing leaflets.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Seditious.

Mr. SIMMONS: Certain people were arrested for distributing leaflets. They were published by the Society of Friends Committee, of which Mr. Harrison Barrow and another gentleman, whose name I have forgotten, were members. These people, though they were not charged in the court, took upon their shoulders the responsibility for the publication of these leaflets for the purpose of protecting poorer people, some of whom had lost sons in the early years of the war and who were keen on the question of peace by negotiation propaganda. That is all it was. That was not sedition. Mr. Harrison Barrow was fighting for a principle which 99 per cent. of the front bench of this Government were fighting for during that particular period, and also even some members of the Conservative party and many of the Liberal party as well. Here we have a man who had the courage to face that prosecution—a man who is not of working class origin and had sufficient wealth to live upon and to enjoy comfort—undergoing imprisonment for the principles in which he believed. I suggest that that is no detriment to his character but a tribute to his character, and this House would be well advised not to take any notice of the ill advised attacks on his personal character by persons who have no personal knowledge of the case. I believe that I shall be supported even by Conservative Members representing Birmingham constituencies, and, at least by my five Labour colleagues from Birmingham in what I have said as to the integrity of Mr. Harrison Barrow and the honour and esteem in which he is held by the vast majority of the citizens in that great city.

Mr. F. OWEN: This House is accustomed to somersaults by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). By an overwhelming vote in the Lobby we have just decided to take the political bias out of our public appointments. The right hon. Gentleman
returns from the Lobby and proceeds to defend that principle. He proceeds to hold up to public contumely a man whose offence was a purely political offence during the War. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman begs the Committee to forget 1926 and then comes down with the skill of practised oratory and presses for remembrance of what was committed in the turmoils of 1918. The Leader of his party shows more tolerance than the right hon. Member for Epping. It is only a few weeks since that right hon. Gentleman unveiled a statue to Mrs. Pankhurst, who was associated with this very campaign which is in question. [Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member has made a mistake, it should be pointed out to him.

Mr. OWEN: May I be permitted to make an explanation? When I made that statement I understood that Mrs. Pankhurst had taken part in the movement to secure peace by negotiations. On that point, I may be mistaken. [Interruption.]

Earl WINTERTON: On a point of Order. Is it not usual, when a charge has been made against a person with a distinguished public career in later years—[Interruption].—The hon. Member has definitely associated Mrs. Pankhurst—[Interruption].

Mr. BROMLEY: On a point of Order—

The CHAIRMAN: Only one point of Order at a time. [Interruption.] I understood that the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Owen) was giving the explanation that he was mistaken and was withdrawing it.

Mr. OWEN: If I may be permitted to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman's impatience, when I made the statement that Mrs. Pankhurst was associated with the campaign to secure peace by negotiation, I may have been acting under a misapprehension. [Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members should give the hon. Member an opportunity. If the hon. Member gets up to withdraw, he should be given an opportunity to withdraw. I understand the hon. Member is proceeding to do so.

Mr. BROMLEY: On a point of Order. I do not take up much time in this House. I want to be respectful to the Chair. I wish the Chair to take notice of both sides of the Committee. The point of Order I wish to make is that the hon. Member has not said anything to warrant the interruption and the charge made against him that he has made an unworthy charge against some person who has passed away when he suggests that she may have taken part in this past campaign.

The CHAIRMAN: I think every intelligent Member realises that I was giving the hon. Member an opportunity to withdraw.

Mr. BROMLEY: Mr. Chairman, may I ask if it is in order for you to address such a remark to me? [Interruption.] I rose, I believe perfectly in order and certainly respectfully, on a point of Order. Is it your opinion of order for the Chair to make suggestions with regard to the intelligence of myself or any other Member.

The CHAIRMAN: I can assure the hon. Member that if I meant anything, I meant that my remarks were intelligible to every Member.

Mr. BROMLEY: I am not going to be ins[...] by the Chairman in this House. [Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN: Kindly allow the hon. Member to proceed.

Mr. BROMLEY: May I put a point of Order for the protection of hon. Members of this House? May I ask you, as Chairman, if it is in order, even for you, when a Member of the Committee gets up and in a perfectly courteous and Parliamentary manner puts a point of Order—because, in my opinion, the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Owen) was not insulting—to make references to me—[Interruption.] I will have no insults, even from the Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: I did ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on that side to allow the hon. Member to speak, and, in doing so, I was calling them to order. I find nothing wrong in regard to what has been said and no insult. What I said was, though I might have put it the other way round, that my remarks and
my ruling were quite intelligible to any Member of the House. I apologise to the hon. Member if he thinks I said anything to offend him.

Mr. OWEN: I was about to say, when I was interrupted, that, if I did state that the lady in question had taken part in a campaign to secure peace by negotiation, I did it under a misapprehension, and therefore I wish unreservedly to withdraw that statement. I would like, before I resume my seat, to add that surely there can be no grave charge against a Member in saying that he served a term of imprisonment for a purely political offence, seeing that many distinguished Members of this House have served terms of imprisonment for purely political offences, and, therefore, I merely wish to try to recall the Committee to a more proper sense of things as we left them when we emerged from the Division Lobby on the original Amendment.

Mr. DIXEY: As I understand it, the charge made by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) against the Chancellor of the Exchequer has really nothing to do with the question of what Mr. Harrison Barrow's record is. The question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a perfectly proper question. Why does he present names to the Members of this House without having considered their qualifications properly? Would it not be advisable at this point to consider adjourning the consideration of these names until he is in a position to give the Committee full information in respect to them?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I have already stated to the Committee that I have known Mr. Harrison Barrow for 20 years. The disqualification—in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman's party—has been stated. That was a purely technical offence, and the circumstances redound to the man's credit. As regards the aspersions of the right hon. Gentleman that political motives have entered into this, I deny that altogether. As I told the Committee, everybody is a politician, and you could not appoint a person to a committee of public service who is not a politician. I have not appointed these gentlemen because of their party associations or because of their political views. I looked round
and consulted two or three of my friends, who had long years of municipal experience, and asked them if they could make suggestions to me of men within their own knowledge who would be qualified by their experience. After a short time, I came to the conclusion that the most suitable persons would be those whom we recommend now, Mr. Harrison Barrow and Mr. Jackson. It is quite true that they both happen to be Labour people.

Sir K. WOOD: So does Mr. Neville.

Captain CROOKSHANK: As I raised this question, may I say one word about why I did so? I really asked it in order to get information from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether he knew the full circumstances about these four gentlemen. It appears that this gentleman about whom I asked the question is a personal friend of 20 years' standing, and it is all the more surprising that the right hon. Gentleman did not ask the Financial Secretary to mention that fact. It is a matter of some interest to the public—to put it at its mildest. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was only a technical offence which the gentleman had committed. I do not want to put the gentleman in a false position, or myself, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so perhaps I had better read one or two sentences out of the report in the "Times," because the "Times" is the only paper in this country whose law reports are admitted to be perfectly accurate. It can then be decided between us whether this is a technical offence. The date is 25th May, 1918.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We were all mad then. I was mad too.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The report states:
The hearing was resumed yesterday of the summons against Mr. Harrison Barrow and"—
I will not give the names of the other people, which are not relevant—
for procuring someone else to publish copies of a leaflet entitled 'A Challenge to Militarism' without mentioning on it the name of the author or submitting copies to the Press Bureau.
The Chancellor thinks that a technical offence. During the day, the report says,
he was asked whether in future they would be prepared to submit any war literature to the Press Bureau. Mr. Barrow replied in the negative. That is technical too. I thought it was a political offence before with the Chancellor of the Exchequer; now it has become a technical offence. The magistrate, in summing up, said the leaflets were a glorification of those who refused to fight. Is that merely technical in time of war? They were intended, he added, to induce others not to fight. He convicted him on the second summons and should, as they declared they would not obey the law in future, he must impose a heavy penalty. That is from the "Times" extract. If he thinks that is a technical offence, when the country is in the middle of a great war, other people will disagree with him.

2.0 a.m.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sorry I interrupted the hon. and gallant Gentleman when he was speaking. I see on the Government Front Bench my right hon Friend the First Commissioner of Works. I have heard my right hon. Friend again and again being asked by hon. Gentlemen opposite, "What did you do in the War?", and my right hon. Friend's reply was always, "I tried to stop it." There were many people who tried to stop it during the war, and many went to prison.

Captain WATERHOUSE: Tell us about the "Bullfinch"!

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. and gallant Member for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse) has mentioned the name of a ship in which I served during the War. Will he say why he has mentioned it?

Captain WATERHOUSE: It seems to me that it will be a great deal more interesting to the Committee if the hon. and gallant Member will explain his own experiences during the War instead of asking us to hear about trying to stop it.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. and gallant Member has called out the name of a ship which I had the honour to command. For some years hon. Gentlemen opposite have shouted that name at me from time to time, but usually from behind an Order paper or
a hand. This is the first time I have been able recently to identify an interrupter and to be able to ask what is meant on the Floor of this House. I presume he refers to an accident that was the subject of a Court of Inquiry. I was on patrol in the North Sea in the early part of the War. It is a personal matter, and I have been challenged.

Mr. BOOTHBY: On a point of Order. [Interruption.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Gentleman rises to a point of Order, I must listen to it.

Mr. BOOTHBY: It is now two minutes past two, and I want to know whether it is in order for the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) to indulge in naval reminiscences.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order. If the hon. and gallant Member is out of Order, I will correct him.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I rise to a point of Order for the purpose of asking you whether, in the event of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) embarking upon the escapades of a particular vessel in the Great War, it will also be in order for hon. Members on this side of the Committee to deal with incidents—[Interruption]—if necessary to rebut the statement of the hon. and gallant Member. I submit to you that if these extremely interesting topics are raised on one side of the Committee, they shall be raised on this side.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is impossible for me to anticipate what the hon. and gallant Member is going to say until I have heard him.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was going to be very brief. An insinuation has been made against me. [Interruption.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand that an hon. Member has made some remark which the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull considers to be a reflection upon him. That remark has been made, and the hon. and gallant Member is quite in Order.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: All that I was going to say was that three men were killed. There was a Court of Inquiry. I was re-appointed to my ship, or, rather, I remained in command of her, and commanded her on active service with the Grand Fleet for another year. And now may I ask what the insinuation is? Two or three hon. and right hon. Members of this House to whom I have shown documents have been good enough to send letters of regret or apology. This same story was used in a bye-election. It has simply spread like a snowball. Let us see that the snowball melts away now.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am perfectly satisfied. This gentleman, Mr. Barrow, is going to occupy an unpaid position on a Committee with a great many others. His financial capabilities no one has questioned. His tactlessness has not been questioned. We have heard my right hon. Friend, the First Commissioner of Works, who is a Privy Councellor, say he tried to stop the War, and I honour him for it.

Mr. LANSBURY: And so did Lord Lansdowne.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: They were trying to save valuable lives. I wish more people on all sides had done the same. I hope in another war all the people will do the same. This is the mole hill which hon. Gentlemen opposite have enlarged into a mountain. As I said just now, with complete indifference to their vote in the last Division, I was with the majority. I supported the Chancellor in the last Division. I shall support him in this division. For the sake of political stability, they must at least let this name, to which objection has been taken, be added without further implications being made.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Is that your intention, Mr. Young, to put the four names together so that we have to challenge them together?

The CHAIRMAN: indicated assent.

Mr. CHURCHILL: In that case, we shall vote against these names, not in relation to any particular individual, but because we consider they are brought forward by the Government not to improve the character of this Committee but
from political reasons. On those grounds we shall give our vote.

Mr. BROAD: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has spoken without his book. He says that these names have been introduced afterwards. He does not know apparently and has not taken care to inform himself, that two of these names were on the Order Paper before the discussion arose on the last occasion, so that he is wrong there. It was the intention of the Government to put the names down before the discussion to augment the list of gentlemen who should be on this Committee, because it was so obvious, from the age of so many of them and from their lack of attendance in the past, that you were not likely to have a full Committee unless the numbers were augmented. That is a very good reason why men with vigour of mind and body should be appointed to make good the deficiencies in the others. And if it be that a challenge is to be made to this gentleman owing to

the fact that he has been committed to prison for what was a political offence, when it was necessary for some people to defy the law in order to refute the concocted lies manufactured for the purpose of inflaming people's minds in war time, we should honour a man of that sort.

There is something else. If the fact that this gentleman was put in prison for an offence which is an honour to him is to be brought up, I shall go carefully through the list of the other names to see how many of them ought to be in prison for profiteering during war time. No wonder they wanted the war to go on. The war was a profitable thing to a good many people. If these names are to be challenged by a vote, then I think we ought to challenge every other name and make a full inquiry as to where they got their money from.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 195; Noes, 46.

Division No. 458.]
AYES.
[2.14 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lathan, G.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Egan, W. H.
Law, A. (Rosendale)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Elmley, Viscount
Lawrence, Susan


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Foot, Isaac
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Alpass, J. H.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lawson, John James


Arnott, John
Gibbins, Joseph
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Aske, Sir Robert
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Lees, J.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gill, T. H.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Glassey, A. E.
Lindley, Fred W.


Barr, James
Gossling, A. G.
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Batey, Joseph
Gould, F.
Logan, David Gilbert


Bellamy, Albert
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Longbottom, A. W.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Granville, E.
Longden, F.


Benson, G.
Gray, Milner
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Lunn, William


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Blindell, James
Grundy, Thomas W.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Bowen, J. W.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
McElwee, A.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
McEntee, V. L.


Bromley, J.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)


Brooke, W.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
McKinlay, A.


Brothers, M.
Harris, Percy A.
MacLaren, Andrew


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Haycock, A. W.
McShane, John James


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Mansfield, W.


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Marcus, M.


Burgess, F. G.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Marley, J.


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Herriotts, J.
Mathers, George


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Maxton, James


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hopkin, Daniel
Melville, Sir James


Charleton, H. C.
Horrabin, J. F.
Messer, Fred


Chater, Daniel
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Milner, Major J.


Church, Major A. G.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Morley, Ralph


Clarke, J. S.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Cluse, W. S.
Johnston, Thomas
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Mort, D. L.


Compton, Joseph
Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)
Moses, J. J. H.


Cove, William G.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Daggar, George
Kelly, W. T.
Muff, G.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kennedy, Thomas
Murnin, Hugh


Duncan, Charles
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Nathan, Major H. L.


Ede, James Chuter
Kinley, J.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Edmunds, J. E.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Noel Baker, P. J.


Oldfield, J. R.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Vaughan, D. J.


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Shield, George William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Shillaker, J. F.
Watkins, F. C.


Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Palin, John Henry
Simmons, C. J.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Paling, Wilfrid
Sitch, Charles H.
Wellock, Willfred


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Potts, John S.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Westwood, Joseph


Price, M. P.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
White, H. G.


Pybus, Percy John
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Rathbone, Eleanor
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Stephen, Campbell
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Ritson, J.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Strauss, G. R.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Romeril, H. G.
Sullivan, J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Rowson, Guy
Thurtle, Ernest
Wise, E. F.


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Tinker, John Joseph
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Sanders, W. S.
Toole, Joseph



Sandham, E.
Tout, W. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sawyer, G. F.
Townend, A. E.
Mr. Parkinson and Mr. Barnes.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Smithers, Waldron


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Somerset, Thomas


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Muirhead, A. J.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Everard, W. Lindsay
Penny, Sir George
Womersley, W. J.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ferguson, Sir John
Remer, John R.



Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Euan Wallace.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart



Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Mr. WISE: I have an Amendment on the Paper, in page 2, line 10, at the end to insert the words:
together with an equal number of persons having experience of administration as members of local authorities or of trade unions or of co-operative societies, who shall be appointed by the Treasury so soon as may be after the passing of this Act, and who shall be deemed to be appointed by Act of Parliament.
This Amendment is designed to secure that the Board shall include the representatives indicated in the Amendment. In view, however, of the fact that the Government have met us by appointing four members of rather broader experience than the original members of the committee, I shall not move the Amendment.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Grants for public works.)

Mr. WISE: I do not move my Amendment, in page 2, line 19, to leave out the word "thirty," and to insert instead thereof the words "two hundred."
Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Clauses 3 (Certain debt not to be reckoned as asset of local loans fund); 4 (Remission of balance of principal and interest in respect of loans to which preceding section applies and of interest in respect of certain other loans); 5 (Remission, of principal and interest in respect of certain loans already written off assets of local loans fund); 6 (Remission of outstanding interest on loan to Scrabster Harbour Trustees); and 7 (Short title), ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House."

Mr. BOOTHBY: I do not want to detain the Committee for more than a very few moments, but this Bill affects my constituency to a greater degree, perhaps, than any other constituency in the country. I want to express my satisfaction at the treatment accorded to
Fraserburgh harbour, but I wish also to protest emphatically against the administration of the Public Works Loans Board as far as Peterhead harbour is concerned.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Question is that I report the Bill, as amended, to the House. The hon. Member cannot discuss the merits of the Bill.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Surely, I am entitled to criticise the administration of the Public Works Loans Board in order to show that it is indefensible that—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member cannot raise that on the Question that I do report the Bill to the House. That is the only Question before the Committee.

Bill, as amended, reported.

Order read for consideration of Bill, as amended.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young): What day?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Now.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: It cannot be taken now.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: This day.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That is to-morrow.

Mr. E. BROWN: Can the Bill be taken at this sitting?

Commander Sir BOLTON EYRES MONSELL: On a point of Order. If the Order were to be taken now, it would be called "Now," while "This day" means To-morrow. I submit that we cannot take two Orders in the same sitting.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must confess that I do not know what the Front Bench mean.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I cannot agree with the right hon. Member for Evesham (Sir B. Eyres Monsell) that "This day" means "To-morrow." We do mean by "This day" at the next day's sitting. We do not mean "now."
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Procedure for conferring on local authorities and statutory undertakers power to execute works.)

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, after the word "authority," to insert the words:
which has made a resolution that such powers as aforesaid are required may, after observing the requirements contained in the Third Schedule to this Act.
We have to take into consideration the proposed new Schedule standing in my name in order to understand the purpose of this Amendment This Bill, as we all know, is a Bill to enable local authorities to shorten procedure in getting Bills through this House, provided that they mean the employment of men at present unemployed. I think there is agreement in all quarters of the House that this Bill should become an Act of Parliament as soon as possible. At the same time, there are certain things that many of us who have had considerable experience of local authorities regard it as necessary to amend. The real object of this Amendment is to provide that the present system of taking a Bill to the ratepayers, if there are sufficient objectors among the ratepayers to call such a meeting, shall be followed. It might be said that this will cause a good deal of delay. I know that hon. Members opposite do object to polls of ratepayers, but the polls of ratepayers are the only safeguard that the ratepayers really have against extravagance. Recent polls which have taken place in certain city councils, where there is a Socialist majority, have gone against them. None the less it is the duty of the House to protect the ratepayers against maladministration in any form. The comment that it would cost a poll is beside the mark. It means that you have to give proper notice. It is a safeguard to the ratepayers against those who are representing them in the local councils going in for schemes months after the election, when the point that they are bringing forward has never been discussed at the election. It prevents them from coming to this House and getting through extravagant schemes through
the machinery of this Bill without consulting the ratepayers. This Bill takes away many of the safeguards which the ratepayers have at present. I think the Minister has made a great mistake in taking away the ratepayers' right to demand a poll.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I think the hon. Member is really under a misapprehension. We are not taking away powers. What the hon. Member is really asking for is a poll of the ratepayers. He will find that in this Bill provision is made for a local inquiry. You will not find cases where you have both a local inquiry and a poll of the ratepayers. It is asking a little too much to ask for both. This Bill is an emergency Bill, and it would be quite improper to revive a special additional protection which does not appertain to it. That is especially so when the Royal Commission, which is the last authoritative pronouncement, definitely recommended the repeal of the town's meeting and the poll of ratepayers. After all, there is a local inquiry, and the hon. Member should be satisfied with that.

Mr. PALIN: The first time we are bringing forward a practical Measure for the unemployed, we have the opposition of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley). He proclaims at every street corner his friendship for the unemployed. I think the Minister has taken a most practical step in this Bill. At any rate, he will initiate a little relief work which is badly needed. For the sake of the Member for Grimsby we are to go back to the dark ages; we are to call a village meeting on the village green under the greenwood tree. It is all very well to impute motives. The hon. Member has imputed motives. I am as entitled to say that this is obstruction on his part as he is entitled to say that certain measures were defeated in a public poll of ratepayers. For these reasons I press that common sense, sanity and sympathy should take practical effect.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member for West Newcastle (Mr. Palin) has made two observations. With the first, in part, I agree. The Committee will see that this is the first practical Bill that the Government have brought forward in their 14 months of office.

Mr. PALIN: I did not say that.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Gentleman said that this was the first practical Bill the Government have brought in. The second matter I only want to refer to because he has intervened.

Mr. PALIN: I am not going to stand humbug.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member has no right to make the observation concerning my hon. Friend.

Mr. PALIN: He has no right to impute motives.

Sir K. WOOD: He was perfectly in order in bringing forward this Amendment. It is a perfectly legitimate one. So far as the progress of this Bill is concerned, if he will consult the Minister of Health, he will find that, so far from sustaining the allegations of the hon. Member, the right hon. Gentleman will state that there is no foundation for the statement. He would be well advised to leave the conduct of this Bill to the Minister of Health.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I wish to reply to the attack made upon me. The hon. Member says that I am trying to obstruct this Bill.

Mr. PALIN: That is my opinion.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: It may be the hon. Member's opinion, but it is not worth anything. I have not been standing at the street corners and proclaiming the wrongs of the unemployed. I have done something on their behalf. I have been instrumental in finding more work for the unemployed in my district than he has been in his.

Mr. PALIN: No.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: It is a fair challenge. I challenge the hon. Member to come up to the scratch on this matter. I resent it very much this suggestion of obstruction. I am as anxious as any Member of the House to have a good Bill, and, if this Bill is allowed to go through without reasonable amendment, the hon. Member may come along and grumble at us. He has not given the consideration to this Bill that some of my colleagues and I have.

Sir K. WOOD: On a point of Order, might I call your attention to the conduct of the hon. Gentleman? He has done nothing else but interrupt the proceedings.

Mr. KELLY: Are you aware that the hon. Gentleman suggested that no attention was being paid to it?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think we could get along more expeditiously if the hon. Member who is in possession of the Floor of the House confined his remarks to the Bill. Accusations flung across the Floor of the House always lead to retaliations.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I agree, but, as I belong to the same county as the hon. Member, I do not take these things lying down. I am perfectly satisfied with the explanation of the hon. Member and am quite willing to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, to leave out from the first word "provisions" to the word "necessary," in line 3.
This Amendment is to leave out certain words at the top of page 2 dealing with a matter which is covered by a new Sub-section, (3). That Sub-section authorises local authorities or statutory undertakers to acquire land compulsorily for the purposes of this Act. As amended, it will apply to Part II of the First Schedule and to Sub-section (2) of Part II. It is now considered unnecessary to provide for acquiring land by agreement.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, after the word "order," to insert the words:
together with an estimate of the cost of the works proposed to be executed and the like plans and sections as they would have been required by the Standing Orders of either House of Parliament to deposit if they had proceeded by an application for a Private Bill instead of under this section.
This is the first of a series of Amendments standing in the name of my Friends and myself. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I made on this Amendment a general statement which might apply to the whole series
standing in our names. Our general attitude towards this Bill was explained by certain of my hon. Friends on the Second Reading. We are rather sceptical about the effect of this method. We rather think it is a pill to cure an earthquake. At the same time, as the Government, on their responsibilty, have told us that these powers and changes are necessary, we are willing to consider them in the most reasonable spirit and to facilitate them as far as we can. I would say to my hon. Friend below the Gangway in reply to his charge of obstruction, that we have, as the Minister will tell him, spent several hours conferring with the Minister in trying to meet him on these matters, and that the Amendments standing in our names are Amendments to which, in fact, the Minister has already indicated he is prepared to accept.
The effect of this series of Amendments, put briefly, is this. It proposes to a considerable extent to transform the character of the inquiry proposed to be held under the Bill. We felt that the Joint Committee proposed in the Bill was a body which was either useless or apt to cause delay. Either it took evidence or not: if it did not take evidence it was a redundant body; if it was going to take evidence, you would have two inquries instead of one. Accordingly, we desire to secure in the first place that, in any proposition put forward, there shall be with some exactitude an estimate of cost. Secondly, everybody who preferred a valid objection, an objection in the proper method, should have an opportunity of securing a public hearing. Thirdly, at some stage of the Bill Parliament should have an effective control. Fourthly, as this is an emergency Measure, its operation should be strictly limited in point of time. Our Amendments are directed to this end. The first of them is directed towards the financial end. What we have done is to take the Scottish Private Bill procedure largely as a model. The only difference is that in the Scottish Private Bill procedure the inquiry is held by a panel, whereas, in this case, in order to secure greater speed, it is proposed to leave it to an individual. Otherwise the proposals put forward here are identical with the Scottish Private Bill procedure. The effect, if our proposals be accepted, is that, after inquiry, the Minister will
present to the House, a Confirmation Bill which will come to this House and subsequently to the other House as if it had already passed through Committee. The first stage in this House will be the Report stage, and next Third Reading. These are, briefly, the effects of the Amendments we are proposing. With this short explanation I move the first of them.

Mr. GREENWOOD: It would be convenient to take the whole series of Amendments now. I do not want to argue with the right hon. Gentleman about his scepticism or about his earthquake. I never said it would cure the earthquake, but that it is a good pill as a pill. We have never tied ourselves down to procedure, except that we were anxious to simplify, as far as possible, the procedure for local authorities wishing to proceed with work affecting unemployment. I think these proposals may be, perhaps, quicker than the original proposals in the Bill, and they may meet with more general support than the original proposal. I therefore propose that the Committee should accept them. The one which is now immediately under discussion with regard to cost is a reasonable one and follows what is now the practice with regard to private Bills before the House. As to subsequent Amendments, I am proposing that they should be accepted, and the Amendment as to the duration of the Bill I shall accept with the full knowledge that we have the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 2, line 6, after the word "will," insert the word "materially."

In line 8, after the word "be," insert the word "materially."—[Sir K. Wood.]

In line 23, at the end, insert the words:
(3) An Order under this section may authorise a local authority or statutory undertakers to acquire compulsorily and enter upon any land required for the purposes of the works to be executed under the powers proposed to be conferred by the Order in like manner as if it had been an Order under section two of this Act."—[Mr. Greenwood.]

In line 33, after the word "by," insert the word "such."

In line 33, after the word "Orders," insert the words "as aforesaid."

In line 39, leave out the word "public."

In line 39, after the word "notice," insert the words "by public advertisement."

In page 3, line 2, leave out from the word "purchased," to the end of the paragraph, and insert instead thereof the words:
So, however, that any such public advertisement shall be required to contain the like information, and to be published in the same newspapers and at the same intervals, and the like Gazette notice thereof shall be required to be given as would, if the applicants had proceeded by an application for a private Bill instead of under this section, have been required by such Standing Orders as aforesaid.
In line 14, leave out from the word "with," to the end of Sub-section (4), and insert instead thereof the words:
(5) Before laying before Parliament any draft Order under this section, the Minister may direct an inquiry to be held with respect thereto, and, if any objections are duly made to any such draft Order and not withdrawn, the Minister shall not lay the draft Order before Parliament until such an inquiry has been held with respect to the objections."—[Sir K. Wood.]
In line 34, after the word "recommending," insert the words:
whether the Order should be proceeded with and, if proceeded with."—[Sir C. Cobb.]

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 3, line 39, after the word "shall," to insert the words:
save in so far as the whole or any part thereof may be ordered by the Minister to be paid by any person whose objection he adjudges, after considering the report to have been frivolous.

Sir BOYD MERRIMAN: I should like to call attention to this Amendment. There may be some precedent, but it is not a good precedent. According to the Amendment, the Minister, after considering the report to have been frivolous, may adjudge an objection to pay the whole or any part of the cost of the inquiry. I am tempted to ask the question:
Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us?
But on what principle has he made the Minister to have the power in his own cause, because that is what it is, to order
costs when he thinks that somebody who is exercising his legal rights in objecting is in the wrong.

Miss LAWRENCE: We cannot strike out the idea of frivolous objections. The first time in which the provision is indicated is in the Public Health Act, 1875. So well did the provision do its work that in 1838 it was extended to inquiries under the Local Government Act, and finally, in 1925, in the Housing Act, the same provision was extended to housing inquiries. It is a very old power and has been repeatedly extended by Parliament to prevent the case of the merely frivolous objections. With that explanation, I hope that the Committee will allow it to pass.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 3, line 43, leave out the word "incurred," and insert instead thereof the words:
payable by any person, authority or undertakers.

In line 44, leave out the words "the local," and insert instead thereof the words "that person."—[Mr. Greenwood.]

In page 4, line 2, leave out the word "shall" and insert instead thereof the words:
may, after considering the report, make in the draft Order any modifications which appear to him to be necessary, and shall, if he lays the draft Order before Parliament, also.

In line 3, leave out from the word "Parliament," to the end of the Clause, and insert instead thereof the words:
(8) If the Minister decides to lay before Parliament any draft Order submitted to him under this section, he shall do so by introducing in Parliament a Bill to confirm the Order, and the Bill after introduction shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages up to and including Committee and shall be ordered to be considered in either House as if reported from a Committee and when the Bill has been read a third time and passed in the first House of Parliament the like proceedings shall be taken in the second House of Parliament."—[Sir K. Wood.]

In line 26, at the end, add the words:
(8) Any Order under this section may be amended or revoked by means of a subsequent Order laid before Parliament by the appropriate Minister on the application of the local authority or statutory undertakers
by whom the original Order was submitted, and the foregoing provisions of this section shall, so far as applicable, apply to any such subsequent Order in like manner as to the original order."—[Sir C. Cobb.]

CLAUSE 2.—(Power to make orders authorising local authorities and statutory undertakers to purchase land compulsorily for certain purposes.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: I desire to raise a point of considerable substance on this Clause. Under it there is power to make orders authorising local authorities and statutory undertakers to purchase land compulsorily for certain purposes. I desire to inquire of the Minister of Transport what will be the position of municipal or other electrical undertakers who require sites for the provision of sub-stations. As the Minister of Transport is well aware, there is a great call for electrical development in rural areas, and a Standing Committee set up by the Electricity Commissioners to deal with rural electrification has on more than one occasion made representations to the Minister of Transport regarding the need for further powers for the acquisition of sites for the provision of sub-stations. More powers are needed in this direction. It is almost impossible in some cases for electrical undertakers to obtain sites for sub-stations. In certain cases, although perhaps they only want a bit of land a little larger than the table, they cannot get it, and they have to go to the expense of acquiring a cottage which has to be demolished in order to acquire the site. Some times the site is required from a local authority, and sometimes it may be from a private owner. The difficulty is serious in each of those cases.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I think I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman on the point at once.

Sir D. NEWTON: I do not want to detain the House; I only want an authoritative statement as to whether the powers will enable undertakers to acquire a site both cheaply and expeditiously.

Mr. MORRISON: Clause 2 gives powers of compulsory acquisition for any purpose covered by the First Schedule to the Bill, and the hon. Gentleman, I think, will be satisfied on reference to the First Schedule, Part I, paragraph 1, that the powers which he thinks ought to be conferred in fact are conferred by this Clause of the Bill.

Sir D. NEWTON: I am very glad to have that assurance.
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Provisions as to land belonging to local authorities and public undertakings.)

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 5, line 43, to leave out from the word "authorise," to the word "and," in page 6, line 6, and to insert instead thereof the words:
a highway authority to acquire compulsorily, subject to any conditions imposed by the Order, an easement or right in, to, or over any such land for the purposes of the construction, improvement, or enlargement of any bridge under or over such land.
The Clause, as drafted, provides that both land belong to either a railway company or a statutory undertaker cannot be acquired compulsorily under the Bill, but an order may authorise the compulsory acquisition of an casement over any such land. It has been represented to us by the Railway Companies Association that this power is needlessly wide, and, in fact, except as regards highways and bridges, compulsory powers already exist for taking casements. We think the view reasonable, and I accordingly move this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 14, leave out the words "section six," and insert instead thereof the words "sections six and seven."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Clause 4 (Amendment of 10 and 11, Geo. 5. c. 57, s. 2 (1)), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Amendment of 9 and 10 Geo. 5. c. 100.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I wish to speak against the Clause standing part, so that I can have some assurance from the Minister of Transport. Clause 5 deals with Special Orders made by the Electricity Commissioners and, under the Act of 1919, before they can take possession of certain land for the purpose of laying down their electric cables, they have to hold a public inquiry. That was in order that members of the public affected by the scheme could raise their objections. So far as I can gather, the procedure is altered altogether in this Clause. The Electricity Commissioners are obliged to inform those whose rights are affected under a Special Order that certain things are to be done. These people are then empowered to write to the Electricity Commissioners stating any objections they have. The Commissioners then agree to the objections or refuse them, and report to the Minister. The Minister communicates with the objectors who can again make their objections. Then absolutely the last word rests with the Minister, and it is not necessary to have a public inquiry.
On the Second Reading, the Minister made a passing reference to it in his reply, towards the end of the debate, saying that he thought that the opinion put forward by me was a misunderstanding of the Clause. He went on to say that the Clause deals with Special Orders and the electricity supply, but does not alter the procedure of the Electricity Commissioners, and enables the Minister to settle disagreements as far as he can, and to act quickly with any opposition that is left. In fact, he already can waive frivolous objections. Was he really correct in that statement? I have consulted legal authorities concerned with the drafting of Amendments and with Bills, and they certainly are of the opinion that this will take away from those who object the right to have an inquiry. Let me give a case in which a grave injustice would have been done, where the Electricity Commissioners wanted to carry their lines over a certain estate. It had been decided by the owners to lay out
the estate for building purposes, making it an ideal residential district connected with the town which I represent. They sent forward their objections, and, first of all, the Commissioners would not take any notice, but they had power to demand an inquiry, and it was demanded. The Minister sent down his inspectors. Then, when the report was made, and it was shown how the district would be altogether spoiled by laying these overhead lines, it was decided that an alternative scheme must be put forward. The Commissioners did find an alternative route and the matter was at an end.
Under this particular procedure, those persons would have had no right to an inquiry and no inspector would have been sent down, and the Minister, on the evidence put forward by the Commissioners, would have overruled objections by anyone else. It may be said that if we are to have these inquiries there will be possibly some delay. I do not think so. If the Minister employs for the time being one or two inspectors to deal with these cases, the delay at present is due to the fact that you have a limited number of inspectors, and it is a question of waiting until they can get round to the various districts. If you want to hasten procedure, you should appoint more inspectors.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The hon. Member, I think, is mistaken as to the change which will be effected. In fact, there is no change in the existing procedure up to the point the Order reaches the Minister of Transport for the purposes of confirmation. All the rights of the objectors are preserved up to that point. But there is a class of unopposed special orders that are made after considering in writing various objections made by the Commissioners, and they then become unopposed special orders, but the Minister, nevertheless, is bound to delay confirming the Order 21 days, for the receipt of objections to the confirmation. After the Minister has done that, it has to be confirmed by the two Houses, and they are not always confirmed automatically. I believe that in their Lordships' House they allow still more elaborate procedure, and that from the beginning to the end they can take from 15 to 18 months to get through. I really think that is an
indefensible state of affairs, particularly where no great point of contention is involved.
In the great majority of cases, as the result of consideration of objections by the Electricity Commissioners, they are not opposed. Out of 57 orders made last year, 48 were not opposed, and, in such cases, application to publish intention to confirm and receive objections is a needless waste of time. Sometimes, as in the case in which one of the Members of the Liberal party is interested, it will tipple over into the end of the Parliamentary Session, and we cannot confirm until we come back in October. There are only four cases where the Minister will be able to dispense with this procedure. First, where there are no objections. Secondly, there is the case where objections have been withdrawn. There will be no objection to the power we take in that respect. Thirdly, there are cases where outstanding objections appear to the Minister to be frivolous. This is continuing an existing state of the law and, if altered, we should be making the position worse from the point of view of time. The fourth case is where the real change occurs, where any outstanding objection appears to have been removed by Amendments made by order of the Commissioners. That is the long and the short of the provisions. It is not a particularly revolutionary thing. It would not turn the electrical world upside down and enable it even now to do things as quickly as we would like. It is useful speeding up, and I hope that the House will give us this Clause.

CLAUSE 6.—(Interpretation.)

Amendments made: In page 7, line 29, after the second word "and," insert the words "(except in relation to London)".

In line 35, after the word "any," insert the words "public, general, or."—[Miss Lawrence.]

Major MILNER: I beg to move, in page 8, line 2, at the end, to add the words:
Orders under Section One of this Act shall not be deemed to be Provisional Orders.
The Amendment will preserve the constitutional rights of local authorities
and municipalities of applying to Parliament by promoting private Bills, where they desire to do so. It will have the additional advantage of reducing the ambiguity of Standing Orders which relate to Provisional Orders.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Application to Scotland.)

Amendments made: In page 8, line 12, leave out the word "and."
In line 13, at the end, insert the words:
and the expression 'lands and hereditaments' shall mean 'lands and heritages.'

In line 14, after the word "for," insert the words "paragraph (a) of."

In line 15, leave out the word "proviso," and insert instead thereof the word "paragraph."

In line 16, leave out the words "Provided that," and insert instead thereof the word "(a)."

In page 9, line 5, after the word "the," insert the word "First."—[Mr. W. Adamson.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Short title, extent, saving and duration.)

Amendment made: In page 9, line 22, leave out the word "thirty-three," and insert instead thereof the word "thirty-two."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Further Amendments made: In page 9, line 25, have out the word "of."

In line 29, after the word "incurred," insert the words "or any order having effect."—[Mr. Greenwood.]

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Compulsory Purchase Orders.)

Amendments made: In page 10, line 33, leave out from the word "Act," to the end of the paragraph.

In page 11, line 12, leave out the words "or building," and insert instead thereof the words "building or manufactory."

In line 13, leave out the words "and required for the amenity of."

In line 15, after the word "building," insert the word "manufactory."

In line 17, leave out the words "or building," and insert instead thereof the words "building or manufactory."

In line 19, leave out the word "damage," and insert instead thereof the word "detriment."

In line 19, leave out the words "or building," and insert instead thereof the words "building or manufactory."

In line 21, after the word "amenity," insert the words "or convenience."

In line 27, after the word "building," insert the word "manufactory."—[Miss Lawrence.]

Further Amendment made: In page 13, line 18, leave out the word "fourteen," and insert instead thereof the words "twenty-one."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Further Amendment made: In page 13, line 35, leave out the word "So," and insert instead thereof the word "As."—[Miss Lawrence.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Provisions of 19 and 20 Geo. 5. c. 33. applied with modifications to Orders for the Compulsory acquisition of rights to substitute bridges for level crossings over railways).

Amendments made: In page 14, line 22, leave out from the word "to," to the end of the Sub-section, and insert instead thereof the words:
the estimated saving to the grantors by reason of the substitution of the bridge for the level crossing.
In line 32, at the end, to add the words:
7.—(2) Where under the foregoing provisions of this Schedule the grantors are required to contribute to the expenses of a highway authority the contribution shall, at the option of the grantors, be either—

(a) a lump sum; or
(b) an annual payment for such amount and continuing for such number of years as, in default of agreement, may be determined by arbitration; or
(c) an annual payment continuing indefinitely of such amount as, in default of agreement, may be determined by arbitration.

(3) Any such lump sum and so much of any such annual payment as represents capital shall be applied by the highway authority for the purposes for which capital money is applicable by them, and any question as to what part of any such annual payment represents capital shall be determined by the Minister of Health."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 250.]

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL APPEAL (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [Lords],

Order for Second Reading read.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is introduced at the request of the Northern Ireland Government, and its purpose is to set up a court of criminal appeal in Northern Ireland similar to that which exists in this country and also in Scotland. We are adopting the same procedure in connection with the court to be set up in Northern Ireland as that which exists already in Scotland.

Mr. KELLY: I want to draw attention to Clause 17. This Bill is intended to give to Northern Ireland a court of criminal appeal, but, at the same time, it is giving an opportunity for appeals to be lodged by those who have already suffered through decisions of certain of the courts. While they are given that opportunity, there is one outstanding case, which was mentioned in the Northern Ireland Parliament, which is going to be ruled out if this Bill is passed in its present form. Clause 17 says that, under the powers conferred on the Minister, he may, at any time after 31st March, 1931, exercise them as if the sentence had been passed after that date. It refers, however, to Clause 19, which provides that it shall apply only to persons convicted on indictment. I am referring to the case of Mrs. Whan and her son, which is well known in the North of Ireland. I am not going into the merits of the case, but I feel that the whole matter should go for appeal to the court which is now being set up. If the case had been tried on indictment, the Minister would have had a right to
allow it to go to appeal, but where the case has been before sessions or petty sessions there will be no appeal, and, consequently, this woman will find that this court is of no advantage to her at all. I ask that this Bill, which is going to have a retrospective effect, should have it in a right and full sense, and should apply to every case coming before sessions, and I ask that it should have further consideration before this matter is passed and a grave injustice done to this lady.

Mr. SHORT: The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) is correct when he says appeals will now arise in connection with indictments as far as this Bill is concerned. It is not proposed to go further than that. That is all that takes place in connection with the Courts of Appeal in this country and in Scotland. It is true that we make no provision for an appeal which arises out of a conviction at petty sessions, but no such appeal exists in this country. The appeal can go from petty sessions to quarter sessions, and that right, I am advised, exists in Ireland. In connection with the case mentioned by my hon. Friend, the lady in question did not exercise her right to take her appeal to the quarter sessions. We have, however, provided in Clause 17 (2), for a case of this character to be dealt with, and I am happy to inform my hon. Friend that the case he has mentioned has been brought to the attention of His Majesty's Government. Communications have taken place between my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Northern Ireland Government, and we have received an assurance from the Northern Ireland Government, from the Secretary to the Cabinet, that when this Bill is passed they will raise no objection. That is to say, that if the friends of Mrs. Whan press her case, they will raise no objection to the procedure of the Courts being exercised to enable her case to receive consideration at the hands of the Court. The letter is in the following terms:
The Northern Government desires to give an assurance to the Secretary of State that, in the event of the Bill passing into law, with the general Amendment added thereto, and in the event of representations being made by those interested in Mrs. Whan, such steps as may be proper will be taken to refer the case to the new Court of Appeal.
In such circumstances, I hope my hon. Friend will be satisfied.

Mr. KELLY: I have often read of cases where the Judge says, "That is not in the Act, but in the letter." Will the Judge accept that being in the letter as sufficient?

Mr. SHORT: That is for the Court to decide, but it is clear that there will be no obstacle placed in the way of Mrs. Whan reaching the Court of Appeal, whatever the Court decides. As to that I cannot answer.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Short.]

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL APPEAL (NORTHERN IRELAND) [MONEY].

[King's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish a Court of Criminal Appeal in Northern Ireland and to amend the Law relating to appeals in criminal cases in Northern Ireland, it is expedient to authorise the payment (as part of the expenses of the said Court) out of moneys provided by Parliament of the cost of taking any shorthand notes to be taken in pur-
suance of the said Act, and of making any transcripts of the said notes to be furnished in pursuance of the said Act to the registrar of the said Court and to the Minister for Home Affairs for Northern Ireland." (King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Short.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 AND 1929.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Colchester Gas Company, which was presented on the 30th day of June and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Farnham Gas and Electricity Company, which was presented on the 30th day of June and published, be approved."—[Mr. W. R. Smith.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven, of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question, put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Seventeen Minutes before Four o'Clock a.m.